Comparison Overview

Save the Children International

VS

World Vision

Save the Children International

1 St. Johns Lane , London, England, GB, EC1M 4BL 
Last Update: 2026-04-04
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.savethechildren.net

Save the Children Save the Children is the world's leading independent organisation for children. We work in around 120 countries. Our vision is to live in a world in which every child attains the right to survival, protection, development and participation. Last year Save the Children's programmes and campaigns reached more than 55 million children directly around the world, through our and our partners'​ work. We work to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children and to achieve immediate and lasting change in their lives. Across all of our work, we pursue several core values: accountability, ambition, collaboration, creativity and integrity.

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 17,354
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
View Profile

World Vision

London, GB
Last Update: 2026-04-04
Between 800 and 849
http://www.wvi.org

World Vision is the largest child-focused private charity in the world. Our 33,000+ staff members working in nearly 100 countries have united with our incredible supporters to impact the lives of over 200 million vulnerable children by tackling the root causes of poverty. Through World Vision every 60 seconds…a family gets water…a hungry child is fed…a family receives the tools to overcome poverty. Motivated by our faith and guided by our deep experience and expertise, we are a Christian humanitarian, development and advocacy organisation devoted to improving the lives of children, families and their communities around the world and creating lasting impact that will live on in generations to come. We serve all people, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender.

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 19,157
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/save-the-children-international.jpeg
Save the Children International
—
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/worldvision.jpeg
World Vision
—
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
Save the Children International
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
World Vision
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Save the Children International in 2026.

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for World Vision in 2026.

Incident History — Save the Children International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Save the Children International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — World Vision (X = Date, Y = Severity)

World Vision cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/save-the-children-international.jpeg
Save the Children International
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2023
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/worldvision.jpeg
World Vision
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

World Vision company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Save the Children International company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Save the Children International company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas World Vision company has not reported any.

In the current year, World Vision company and Save the Children International company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Save the Children International company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while World Vision company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither World Vision company nor Save the Children International company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither World Vision company nor Save the Children International company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Save the Children International company nor World Vision company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Save the Children International nor World Vision holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

World Vision company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Save the Children International company.

World Vision company employs more people globally than Save the Children International company, reflecting its scale as a Non-profit Organizations.

Neither Save the Children International nor World Vision holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor World Vision holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor World Vision holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor World Vision holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor World Vision holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor World Vision holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

nimiq/core-rs-albatross is a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.3.0, two peer-facing consensus request handlers assume that the history index is always available and call blockchain.history_store.history_index().unwrap() directly. That assumption is false by construction. HistoryStoreProxy::history_index() explicitly returns None for the valid HistoryStoreProxy::WithoutIndex state. when a full node is syncing or otherwise running without the history index, a remote peer can send RequestTransactionsProof or RequestTransactionReceiptsByAddress and trigger an Option::unwrap() panic on the request path. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.5.95, FileTools.download_file() in praisonaiagents validates the destination path but performs no validation on the url parameter, passing it directly to httpx.stream() with follow_redirects=True. An attacker who controls the URL can reach any host accessible from the server including cloud metadata services and internal network services. This issue has been patched in version 1.5.95.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, OAuthManager.validate_token() returns True for any token not found in its internal store, which is empty by default. Any HTTP request to the MCP server with an arbitrary Bearer token is treated as authenticated, granting full access to all registered tools and agent capabilities. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, the PraisonAI Gateway server accepts WebSocket connections at /ws and serves agent topology at /info with no authentication. Any network client can connect, enumerate registered agents, and send arbitrary messages to agents and their tool sets. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.90, MCPToolIndex.search_tools() compiles a caller-supplied string directly as a Python regular expression with no validation, sanitization, or timeout. A crafted regex causes catastrophic backtracking in the re engine, blocking the Python thread for hundreds of seconds and causing a complete service outage. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.90.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References