Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1vsISO 27701:2019
See exactly how Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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:
Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 maps to ISO 27701:2019 with 54% coverage across 106 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 197 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls identifies 91 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 197 controls analysed | 969 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 173 control mappings across 17 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 969 frameworks.
A&A - Audit & Assurance(6 mappings)
AIS - Application & Interface Security(2 mappings)
BCR - Business Continuity Management & Operational Resilience(5 mappings)
CCC - Change Control & Configuration Management(3 mappings)
CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management(4 mappings)
+153 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 969 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever, no credit card required
The Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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. Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 into ISO 27701:2019 lands at 47.2%, while ISO 27701:2019 into Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 lands at 6.1%, 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 evidence buys you for ISO 27701:2019, the other asks the reverse.
51 of 108 ISO 27701:2019 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 57 are genuine gaps.
12 of 197 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27701:2019. 185 are genuine gaps.
- 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 54% in the header counts how many Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 comparisons
Other ISO 27701:2019 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 969 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 969 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
- ✓ 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 and ISO 27701:2019?
Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 has 197 controls across its framework, while ISO 27701:2019 covers 108 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 106 overlapping controls (54% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management, where 18 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls have no direct ISO 27701:2019 equivalent.
How many controls map between Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 and ISO 27701:2019?
Of 197 total Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls, 106 map directly to ISO 27701:2019 controls, representing 54% coverage. The remaining 91 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 to ISO 27701:2019?
91 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27701:2019. The highest concentration of gaps is in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management with 18 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 and ISO 27701:2019?
The domain with the highest gap count is CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management (18 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.