Comparison Overview

Mercy Health

VS

The Cigna Group

Mercy Health

Cincinnati, 45237, US
Last Update: 2026-03-29
Between 750 and 799

At Mercy Health, we understand that every family is a universe. A network of people who love, and support, and count on one other to be there. Everybody means the world to someone and we are committed to care for others so they can be there for the ones they love. With nearly 35,000 employees across regions of Ohio and Kentucky, we’re one of the largest health care systems in the country. At each of our more than 600 points of care, we deliver high-quality, compassionate care with one united purpose: to help our patients be well in mind, body and spirit.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 14,071
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

The Cigna Group

900 Cottage Grove Rd, Bloomfield, 06002, US
Last Update: 2026-03-30

The Cigna Group is a global health company committed to creating a better future built on the vitality of every individual and every community. We relentlessly challenge ourselves to partner and innovate solutions for better health. The Cigna Group includes products and services marketed under Cigna Healthcare, Evernorth Health Services or its subsidiaries. The Cigna Group maintains sales capabilities in more than 30 countries and jurisdictions, and has more than 190 million customer relationships around the world.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 21,598
Subsidiaries: 19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mercyhealth-chp.jpeg
Mercy Health
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-cigna-group.jpeg
The Cigna Group
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Mercy Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Cigna Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mercy Health in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Cigna Group in 2026.

Incident History — Mercy Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mercy Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Cigna Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Cigna Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mercyhealth-chp.jpeg
Mercy Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Invoice Printing Error
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2016
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Exposure (Misconfigured Internet-Accessible Files)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-cigna-group.jpeg
The Cigna Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party vendor compromise
Motivation: Data exfiltration
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Mercy Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Cigna Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

The Cigna Group company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Mercy Health company.

In the current year, The Cigna Group company and Mercy Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Cigna Group company nor Mercy Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both The Cigna Group company and Mercy Health company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither The Cigna Group company nor Mercy Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mercy Health company nor The Cigna Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mercy Health nor The Cigna Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

The Cigna Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mercy Health company.

The Cigna Group company employs more people globally than Mercy Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Mercy Health nor The Cigna Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mercy Health nor The Cigna Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mercy Health nor The Cigna Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mercy Health nor The Cigna Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mercy Health nor The Cigna Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mercy Health nor The Cigna Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3300R 17.0.0cu.557_b20221024. This affects the function setLanCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument lanIp leads to command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Perl versions from 5.9.4 before 5.40.4-RC1, from 5.41.0 before 5.42.2-RC1, from 5.43.0 before 5.43.9 contain a vulnerable version of Compress::Raw::Zlib. Compress::Raw::Zlib is included in the Perl package as a dual-life core module, and is vulnerable to CVE-2026-3381 due to a vendored version of zlib which has several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2026-27171. The bundled Compress::Raw::Zlib was updated to version 2.221 in Perl blead commit c75ae9cc164205e1b6d6dbd57bd2c65c8593fe94.

Description

Ghidra versions prior to 12.0.3 improperly process annotation directives embedded in automatically extracted binary data, resulting in arbitrary command execution when an analyst interacts with the UI. Specifically, the @execute annotation (which is intended for trusted, user-authored comments) is also parsed in comments generated during auto-analysis (such as CFStrings in Mach-O binaries). This allows a crafted binary to present seemingly benign clickable text which, when clicked, executes attacker-controlled commands on the analyst’s machine.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A critical security vulnerability in parisneo/lollms versions up to 2.2.0 allows any authenticated user to accept or reject friend requests belonging to other users. The `respond_request()` function in `backend/routers/friends.py` does not implement proper authorization checks, enabling Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) attacks. Specifically, the `/api/friends/requests/{friendship_id}` endpoint fails to verify whether the authenticated user is part of the friendship or the intended recipient of the request. This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access, privacy violations, and potential social engineering attacks. The issue has been addressed in version 2.2.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in parisneo/lollms versions prior to 2.2.0, specifically in the `/api/files/export-content` endpoint. The `_download_image_to_temp()` function in `backend/routers/files.py` fails to validate user-controlled URLs, allowing attackers to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal services and cloud metadata endpoints. This vulnerability can lead to internal network access, cloud metadata access, information disclosure, port scanning, and potentially remote code execution.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N