AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and DefencevsEIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)
See exactly how AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls map to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence maps to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) with 18% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 38 AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls identifies 31 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Leadership (Clause 5).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 38 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 17 of 17 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Performance Evaluation and Improvement (Clauses 9–10)(3 mappings)
Operation (Clause 8)(14 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence comparisons
Other EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence and EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?
AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence has 38 controls across its framework, while EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) covers 50 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (18% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Leadership (Clause 5), where 10 AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls have no direct EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) equivalent.
How many controls map between AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence and EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?
Of 38 total AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls, 7 map directly to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023) controls — representing 18% coverage. The remaining 31 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence to EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?
31 AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls have no direct equivalent in EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023). The highest concentration of gaps is in Leadership (Clause 5) with 10 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 AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence and EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (2023)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Leadership (Clause 5) (10 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
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.