Comparison Overview

Optum

VS

Siemens Healthineers

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

Siemens Healthineers

Siemensstr. 3, Forchheim, 91301, DE
Last Update: 2026-03-27

Siemens Healthineers is a leading medtech company with over 125 years of experience. We pioneer breakthroughs in healthcare. For everyone. Everywhere. Sustainably. Our portfolio, spanning in vitro and in vivo diagnostics to image-guided therapy and cancer care, is crucial for clinical decision-making and treatment pathways. With our strengths in patient twinning, precision therapy, as well as digital, data, and artificial intelligence (AI), we are well positioned to take on the greatest challenges in healthcare. We will continue to build on these strengths to help overcome the world’s most threatening diseases, enable efficient operations, and expand access to care. We are a team of more than 71,000 Healthineers in over 70 countries passionately pushing the boundaries of what is possible in healthcare to help improve the lives of people around the world.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 49,070
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

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/siemens-healthineers.jpeg
Siemens Healthineers
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
Siemens Healthineers
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 Siemens Healthineers in 2026.

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

Optum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Siemens Healthineers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Siemens Healthineers 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/siemens-healthineers.jpeg
Siemens Healthineers
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial gain (ransom), data theft for leverage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Unlocked bootloader
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Siemens Healthineers 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 Siemens Healthineers company.

In the current year, Siemens Healthineers company and Optum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Both Siemens Healthineers company and Optum company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Optum company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Siemens Healthineers company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Optum company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Siemens Healthineers company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Siemens Healthineers company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Optum company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Optum nor Siemens Healthineers holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Siemens Healthineers company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Optum company.

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

Neither Optum nor Siemens Healthineers holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Optum nor Siemens Healthineers holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Optum nor Siemens Healthineers holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Optum nor Siemens Healthineers holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Optum nor Siemens Healthineers holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Optum nor Siemens Healthineers 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