Azure Security BenchmarkvsISO 27701:2019
See exactly how Azure Security Benchmark controls map to ISO 27701:2019. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which ISO 27701:2019 controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
Azure Security Benchmark maps to ISO 27701:2019 with 67% coverage across 57 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 85 Azure Security Benchmark controls identifies 28 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 72 mapped controls across 12 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Asset Management(6 mappings)
Backup and Recovery(6 mappings)
Data Protection(8 mappings)
+52 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 27701:2019 crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO 27701:2019 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.
18 of 108 ISO 27701:2019 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Azure Security Benchmark. 90 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Detecting and disabling insecure services and protocols is a required network control.
Grounded in ASBv3-NS-8 Detect and disable insecure services and protocols. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Every requirement of ISO/IEC 27001 that speaks of information security must be read as extending to the protection of privacy as it may be affected by the processing of personally identifiable information, so the management system is...
Every one of the 18 evidenced controls and 90 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- 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 67% 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 27701:2019 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 27701:2019 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 27701:2019?
Azure Security Benchmark has 85 controls across its framework, while ISO 27701:2019 covers 108 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 57 overlapping controls (67% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Incident Response, where 4 Azure Security Benchmark controls have no direct ISO 27701:2019 equivalent.
How many controls map between Azure Security Benchmark and ISO 27701:2019?
Of 85 total Azure Security Benchmark controls, 57 map directly to ISO 27701:2019 controls, representing 67% coverage. The remaining 28 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 27701:2019?
28 Azure Security Benchmark controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27701:2019. The highest concentration of gaps is in Incident Response with 4 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 27701:2019?
The domain with the highest gap count is Incident Response (4 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.