TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0vsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production

See exactly how CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls map to IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

5
Controls Mapped
30
Gaps Found
6%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 maps to IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production with 6% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 35 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls identifies 36 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Device Security.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 35 controls analysed | 723 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 5 of 5 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 723 frameworks.

Supply Chain(1 mappings)

CPG-6.AVendor and Supplier Incident Reporting
→IATF16949-Clause8-Supplier-QMS-Development-Externally-ProvidedIATF 16949 Clause 8 Supplier - Control of Externally Provided Processes + Type and Extent + Supplier QMS Development

Supply Chain and Third Party(4 mappings)

CPG-6.AVendor and Supplier Incident Reporting
→IATF16949-Clause8-Supplier-QMS-Development-Externally-ProvidedIATF 16949 Clause 8 Supplier - Control of Externally Provided Processes + Type and Extent + Supplier QMS Development
CPG-6.BSupply Chain Incident Reporting3 targets
→IATF16949-Clause10-Improvement-Nonconformity-CorrectiveAction-Problem-ErrorProofIATF 16949 Clause 10 - Improvement + Nonconformity + Corrective Action + Problem Solving + Error Proofing + Continual Improvement
→IATF16949-Clause8-Supplier-QMS-Development-Externally-ProvidedIATF 16949 Clause 8 Supplier - Control of Externally Provided Processes + Type and Extent + Supplier QMS Development
→IATF16949-Clause9-Performance-Monitoring-InternalAudit-ManagementReviewIATF 16949 Clause 9 - Performance Evaluation + Monitoring + Internal Audit + Manufacturing Process Audit + Management Review

Related Comparisons

Other CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 comparisons

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs Azure Security Benchmark14 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-171A - Assessing Security Requirements for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-124 Revision 2 - Guidelines for Managing the Security of Mobile Devices13 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements12 mappingsCISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 vs ISO/IEC 27011:202412 mappings

Other IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production comparisons

USMCA Chapter 19 - Digital Trade (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production6 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production6 mappingsAS9100D - Aerospace Quality Management System vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production5 mappingsISO/IEC 27003:2017 vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production5 mappingsISO/IEC 27014:2020 vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production5 mappingsGerman Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production5 mappingsAnnex 11 to EU GMP - Computerised Systems vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production5 mappingsIAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1) vs IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production5 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 723 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 723 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 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 →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production?

CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 has 35 controls across its framework, while IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production covers 10 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 3 overlapping controls (6% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Device Security, where 8 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production equivalent.

How many controls map between CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production?

Of 35 total CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls, 3 map directly to IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls — representing 6% coverage. The remaining 36 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 to IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production?

36 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production. The highest concentration of gaps is in Device Security with 8 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 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPG) 2.0 and IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production?

The domain with the highest gap count is Device Security (8 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

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.