Comparison Overview

Apollo Hospitals

VS

Advocate Health

Apollo Hospitals

Chennai, 600006, IN
Last Update: 2026-03-29

Driven by the vision of its Chairman, Dr. Prathap C. Reddy, the Apollo Hospitals Group pioneered corporate healthcare in India. Apollo revolutionized healthcare when Dr Prathap Reddy opened the first hospital in Chennai in 1983. Today Apollo is the world’s largest integrated healthcare platform with over 10,000 beds across 73 hospitals, over 6000 pharmacies and over 2500 clinics and diagnostic centers as well as 500+ telemedicine centers. Since its inception, Apollo has emerged as one of the world's premier cardiac centers, having conducted over 300,000+ angioplasties and 200,000+ surgeries. Apollo continues to invest in research to bring the most cutting-edge technologies, equipment and treatment protocols to ensure patients have the best available care in the world. Apollo’s 100,000 family members are dedicated to bringing you the best care and leaving the world better than we found it.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 37,617
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Advocate Health

1111 Metropolitan Ave, Charlotte, 28204, US
Last Update: 2026-03-28
Between 750 and 799

Advocate Health is redefining how, when and where care is delivered to help people live well. We’re providing equitable care for all in our communities and using our combined strength and expertise to deliver better outcomes at a lower cost. Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, we have a combined footprint across six states – Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin – and maintain a strong organizational presence in Chicago and Milwaukee.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 32,544
Subsidiaries: 22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/theapollohospitals.jpeg
Apollo Hospitals
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/advocate-health.jpeg
Advocate 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
Apollo Hospitals
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Advocate 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 Apollo Hospitals in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Advocate Health in 2026.

Incident History — Apollo Hospitals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Apollo Hospitals cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Advocate Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/theapollohospitals.jpeg
Apollo Hospitals
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: DDoS, API Vulnerabilities, Employee Credential Theft, System Exploits, Cloud Attacks
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Disruption of Services, Espionage (Potential)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/advocate-health.jpeg
Advocate Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Improper use of Meta Pixel
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Motivation: Unknown
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Advocate Health company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Apollo Hospitals company.

In the current year, Advocate Health company and Apollo Hospitals company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Advocate Health company nor Apollo Hospitals company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Advocate Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Apollo Hospitals company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Apollo Hospitals company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Advocate Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Apollo Hospitals company nor Advocate Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Apollo Hospitals nor Advocate Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Advocate Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Apollo Hospitals company.

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

Neither Apollo Hospitals nor Advocate Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Apollo Hospitals nor Advocate Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Apollo Hospitals nor Advocate Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Apollo Hospitals nor Advocate Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Apollo Hospitals nor Advocate Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Apollo Hospitals nor Advocate 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