Comparison Overview

Sutter Health

VS

Emory Healthcare

Sutter Health

2200 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, 95833, US
Last Update: 2026-03-25
Between 650 and 699

Sutter Health is a not-for-profit, people-centered healthcare system providing comprehensive care throughout California. Sutter Health is committed to innovative, high-quality patient care and community partnerships, and innovative, high-quality patient care. Today, Sutter Health is pursuing a bold new plan to reach more people and make excellent healthcare more connected and accessible. The health system’s 57,000+ staff and clinicians and 12,000+ affiliated physicians currently serve more than 3 million patients with a focus on expanding opportunities to serve patients, people and communities better. Sutter Health provides exceptional, affordable care through its hospitals, medical groups, ambulatory surgery centers, urgent care clinics, telehealth, home health and hospice services. Dedicated to transforming healthcare, at Sutter Health, getting better never stops. Learn more about how Sutter Health is transforming healthcare at sutterhealth.org and vitals.sutterhealth.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 25,099
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
1

Emory Healthcare

Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, 30322, US
Last Update: 2026-03-28

Emory Healthcare is the most comprehensive health care system in Georgia. We offer 11 hospitals, the Emory Clinic, more than 250 provider locations, and more than 2,800 physicians specializing in 70 different medical subspecialties. Meaning we can provide treatments and services that may not be available at local community hospitals. That's the Emory Difference.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 16,617
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sutter-health.jpeg
Sutter 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/emory-healthcare.jpeg
Emory Healthcare
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
Sutter Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Emory Healthcare
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 Sutter Health in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Emory Healthcare in 2026.

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

Sutter Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Emory Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Emory Healthcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sutter-health.jpeg
Sutter Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Website Tracking Technologies (Pixels, Cookies, Web Beacons, JavaScript)
Motivation: Data Collection for Marketing/Third-Party Use
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Zero-day vulnerability in MOVEit Transfer programme
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Exploitation of MOVEit Transfer Server Vulnerability
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/emory-healthcare.jpeg
Emory Healthcare
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party Service Provider
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Sutter Health company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Emory Healthcare company.

In the current year, Emory Healthcare company and Sutter Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Emory Healthcare company nor Sutter Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Emory Healthcare company and Sutter Health company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Emory Healthcare company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Sutter Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Sutter Health company nor Emory Healthcare company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Sutter Health nor Emory Healthcare holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Sutter Health company nor Emory Healthcare company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Sutter Health company employs more people globally than Emory Healthcare company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Sutter Health nor Emory Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor Emory Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor Emory Healthcare holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor Emory Healthcare holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor Emory Healthcare holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor Emory Healthcare 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