Comparison Overview

Optum

VS

Novant Health

Optum

11000 Optum Circle, Eden Prairie , MN, US, 55344
Last Update: 2026-03-25
Between 650 and 699

At Optum, we take a bold approach to solving the challenges of healthcare. We call it Healthy Optumism — the realistic yet hopeful belief that when you’re grounded in real world needs, human connection and data-driven expertise, better is always possible. We use advanced technology to connect people to insights in real time, focus on prevention, and strip away inefficiencies. We know change doesn’t happen overnight, but every success moves us closer to delivering efficient, affordable, high-quality care.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 103,600
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Novant Health

200 Hawthorne Ln, Charlotte, 28204, US
Last Update: 2026-03-25
Between 750 and 799

Novant Health is an integrated network of more than 850 locations, including 19 hospitals, more than 700 physician clinics and urgent care centers, outpatient facilities, and imaging and pharmacy services. This network supports a seamless and personalized healthcare experience for communities in North Carolina and South Carolina. Novant Health is nationally recognized for our unwavering commitment to safety and the highest quality care, and we serve as a catalyst for healthcare transformation through clinical trials, leading-edge research, innovative care delivery models and robust virtual care networks. The expertise and empathy of our 40,000 team members along with more than 8,300 independent and employed clinicians are at the heart of Our Cause as industry leaders caring for communities across the Carolinas. In 2023, Novant Health provided more than $1.6 billion in community benefit, including financial assistance and services. To learn more about our social media community standards, visit: https://www.novanthealth.org/policy/disclaimer/social-media-disclaimer/

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 22,777
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/optum.jpeg
Optum
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/novanthealth.jpeg
Novant 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
Compliance Summary
Optum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Novant Health
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 Optum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Novant Health in 2026.

Incident History — Optum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Optum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Novant Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/optum.jpeg
Optum
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Vulnerabilities in IT infrastructure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/novanthealth.jpeg
Novant Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Incorrect configuration of a pixel (online tracking tool)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Novant Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Optum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Optum company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Novant Health company.

In the current year, Novant Health company and Optum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Optum company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Novant Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Novant Health company and Optum company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Optum company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Novant Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Optum company nor Novant Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Optum nor Novant Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Optum company nor Novant Health company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Optum company employs more people globally than Novant Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Optum nor Novant Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Optum nor Novant Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Optum nor Novant Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Optum nor Novant Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Optum nor Novant Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Optum nor Novant Health 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