Azure Security BenchmarkvsISO 27002:2022
See exactly how Azure Security Benchmark controls map to ISO 27002:2022. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which ISO 27002:2022 controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
Azure Security Benchmark maps to ISO 27002:2022 with 100% coverage across 85 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 85 Azure Security Benchmark controls identifies 0 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Incident Response.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 85 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 185 mapped controls across 12 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Asset Management(17 mappings)
Backup and Recovery(3 mappings)
+165 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 686 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever, no credit card required
The Azure Security Benchmark to ISO 27002:2022 crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO 27002:2022 controls your existing Azure Security Benchmark work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
Coverage does not run both ways. Azure Security Benchmark into ISO 27002:2022 lands at 41.9%, while ISO 27002:2022 into Azure Security Benchmark lands at 69.4%, on the same two control sets. That is not a rounding difference. It is the whole reason these are two separate reports: one asks what your Azure Security Benchmark evidence buys you for ISO 27002:2022, the other asks the reverse.
39 of 93 ISO 27002:2022 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Azure Security Benchmark. 54 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Discovery and classification of sensitive data is the classification activity required.
Grounded in ASBv3-DP-1 Discover, classify, and label sensitive data. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Requires an information security policy together with supporting topic specific policies. These must be defined, approved by management, published, communicated to and acknowledged by relevant personnel and relevant interested parties, and...
Every one of the 39 evidenced controls and 54 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
59 of 85 Azure Security Benchmark controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27002:2022. 26 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Inventory of information and associated assets, with owners recorded.
Grounded in iso-27002-2022::5.9 Inventory of information and other associated assets. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Restrict deployment to approved Azure services using Azure Policy and management group hierarchy with documented exceptions.
Every one of the 59 evidenced controls and 26 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 100% in the header counts how many Azure Security Benchmark controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ISO 27002:2022 controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other Azure Security Benchmark comparisons
Other ISO 27002:2022 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (309K+)
- ✓ 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 Azure Security Benchmark and ISO 27002:2022?
Azure Security Benchmark has 85 controls across its framework, while ISO 27002:2022 covers 93 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 85 overlapping controls (100% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Incident Response, where 0 Azure Security Benchmark controls have no direct ISO 27002:2022 equivalent.
How many controls map between Azure Security Benchmark and ISO 27002:2022?
Of 85 total Azure Security Benchmark controls, 85 map directly to ISO 27002:2022 controls, representing 100% coverage. The remaining 0 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Azure Security Benchmark to ISO 27002:2022?
0 Azure Security Benchmark controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27002:2022. The highest concentration of gaps is in Incident Response with 0 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 Azure Security Benchmark and ISO 27002:2022?
The domain with the highest gap count is Incident Response (0 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.