Skip to main content

Security report for comparethemarket.com.au

Compare the Market · Finance · Australia

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

Compare the Market is a prominent Australian online comparison platform specializing in insurance and financial products. The website offers consumers the ability to compare over 1,000 products from more than 100 brands across multiple categories including health, car, travel, income protection, life, and business insurance. The platform targets Australian consumers seeking better deals and informed choices in the insurance market. The presence of multiple toll-free customer service numbers and official social media channels underscores its commitment to customer engagement and support. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies such as Google Tag Manager, Font Awesome, and Wistia for video content, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Structured data in JSON-LD format enhances SEO and content discoverability. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied and Google site verification present; however, explicit security headers and privacy policies are not evident in the provided content, suggesting areas for improvement. Overall, the website presents a professional and trustworthy front with a strong market position in the Australian insurance comparison sector.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  3. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching comparethemarket.com.au

This scan found 20 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
75
Security headers
65
Email security
75
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The business operates in the finance sector, focusing on insurance product comparison. Its business model revolves around aggregating insurance offerings from various providers to facilitate consumer choice and price comparison. The company appears well-established with a large audience in Australia, leveraging digital marketing and social media to maintain market presence. The lack of visible privacy and cookie policies may impact compliance perception. The platform likely generates revenue through affiliate partnerships or lead generation with insurance providers. The company maintains a consistent brand image and provides clear contact channels, enhancing credibility. No parent or subsidiary companies were identified in the provided data. The business ecosystem includes partnerships with social media platforms and third-party service providers like Auth0 for authentication and Wistia for video hosting.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a baseline security posture with HTTPS usage and Google site verification, which are positive indicators. However, the absence of visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security in the provided data suggests potential gaps in defense-in-depth strategies. No evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries was found, but the lack of explicit privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps, particularly with GDPR and Australian privacy laws. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not apparent, which could hinder timely handling of security incidents. The use of third-party scripts necessitates regular security audits to mitigate supply chain risks. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could benefit from enhanced policies, headers, and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen site security.
  3. Publish an incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure policy to facilitate security issue reporting and management.
  4. Conduct regular security audits of third-party scripts and dependencies to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and mobile optimization to improve user experience and broaden audience reach.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Compare the Market
Description
Compare the Market lets you compare 1,000+ products, 100+ brands across 12+ categories - all in one place. We're here to help you find better deals.
Key services
Health Insurance Comparison, Car Insurance Comparison, Travel Insurance Comparison, Income Protection and Life Insurance Comparison, Business Insurance Comparison
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Font Awesome 6 Pro, Wistia video embed, Auth0 (implied by dns-prefetch), Google Fonts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by canonical URL
  • Google site verification present

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Wistia
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data is not publicly available due to privacy and registrar restrictions
  2. Website uses modern web technologies and structured data for SEO
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie policy pages detected in provided content
  4. Multiple toll-free customer service numbers provided for different insurance categories
  5. Social media presence is established with official Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube links
  6. No forms detected in the provided HTML snippet; likely forms exist but not in the truncated content
  7. No security headers information available from provided data
  8. No signs of WAF or content blocking
  9. Content is professionally presented and relevant to Australian consumers
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing, Font Awesome for icons, and Wistia for video content delivery. The presence of Auth0-related domains suggests use of a third-party authentication service. The site employs Google Fonts for typography and preconnect/dns-prefetch optimizations for performance. Structured data in JSON-LD format is implemented for SEO benefits. The site appears mobile-optimized with responsive design elements. Performance is moderate based on resource loading patterns. No CMS or hosting provider details were explicitly identified. The technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable online comparison platform but could improve in areas such as security headers and privacy compliance.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with comparethemarket.com.au. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review comparethemarket.com.au.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.