Comparison Overview

Sutter Health

VS

UnitedHealth Group

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

UnitedHealth Group

US
Last Update: 2026-03-25

UnitedHealth Group is a health care and well-being company with a mission to help people live healthier lives and help make the health system work better for everyone. We are 340,000 colleagues in two distinct and complementary businesses working to help build a modern, high-performing health system through improved access, affordability, outcomes and experiences. Optum delivers care aided by technology and data, empowering people, partners and providers with the guidance and tools they need to achieve better health. UnitedHealthcare offers a full range of health benefits, enabling affordable coverage, simplifying the health care experience and delivering access to high-quality care. We work with governments, employers, partners and providers to care for 147 million people and share a vision of a value-based system of care that provides compassionate and equitable care. At UnitedHealth Group, our mission calls us, our values guide us and our diverse culture connects us as we seek to improve care for the consumers we are privileged to serve and their communities. Click below to search careers or join our social communities: • Search & apply for careers at careers.unitedhealthgroup.com/ • Follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/UnitedHealthGrp • Follow and like us on Facebook at facebook.com/unitedhealthgroup • Follow us on Instagram at instagram.com/unitedhealthgroup More about UnitedHealth Group can be found at unitedhealthgroup.com/

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 102,711
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
3

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/unitedhealth-group.jpeg
UnitedHealth 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
Sutter Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UnitedHealth 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 Sutter Health in 2026.

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

UnitedHealth Group has 29.58% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Sutter Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

UnitedHealth Group 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/unitedhealth-group.jpeg
UnitedHealth Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2026
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, UnitedHealth Group company has reported more cyber incidents than Sutter Health company.

UnitedHealth Group company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Sutter Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both UnitedHealth Group company and Sutter Health company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

UnitedHealth Group company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Sutter Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Sutter Health company nor UnitedHealth Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Sutter Health nor UnitedHealth Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

UnitedHealth Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Sutter Health company.

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

Neither Sutter Health nor UnitedHealth Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor UnitedHealth Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor UnitedHealth Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor UnitedHealth Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor UnitedHealth Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Sutter Health nor UnitedHealth 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