Cross-Framework Mapping

APRA CPS 234vsCOSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)

See exactly how APRA CPS 234 controls map to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

11
Controls Mapped
14
Gaps Found
16%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

APRA CPS 234 maps to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) with 16% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 25 APRA CPS 234 controls identifies 21 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in APRA CPS 234: Incident Management & Reporting.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 25 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

APRA CPS 234: Information Security Governance(2 mappings)

CPS234-05Roles and responsibilities definition2 targets
Principle 3Defines Desired Culture
Principle 7Defines Risk Appetite

APRA CPS 234: Third-Party Risk Management(9 mappings)

CPS234-16Due diligence and onboarding3 targets
Principle 17Pursues Improvement in ERM
Principle 18Leverages Information and Technology
Principle 19Communicates Risk Information
CPS234-18Ongoing monitoring and assessment3 targets
Principle 17Pursues Improvement in ERM
Principle 18Leverages Information and Technology
Principle 19Communicates Risk Information
CPS234-20Exit strategy and transition planning3 targets
Principle 17Pursues Improvement in ERM
Principle 18Leverages Information and Technology
Principle 19Communicates Risk Information

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 693 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • Unlimited full-text search
  • Framework self-assessment
  • PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

What are the key differences between APRA CPS 234 and COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

APRA CPS 234 has 25 controls across its framework, while COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) covers 20 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (16% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in APRA CPS 234: Incident Management & Reporting, where 5 APRA CPS 234 controls have no direct COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) equivalent.

How many controls map between APRA CPS 234 and COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

Of 25 total APRA CPS 234 controls, 4 map directly to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) controls — representing 16% coverage. The remaining 21 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping APRA CPS 234 to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

21 APRA CPS 234 controls have no direct equivalent in COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017). The highest concentration of gaps is in APRA CPS 234: Incident Management & Reporting with 5 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between APRA CPS 234 and COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

The domain with the highest gap count is APRA CPS 234: Incident Management & Reporting (5 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.