Cross-Framework Mapping

CMMC 2.0vsAPRA CPS 220 Risk Management

See exactly how CMMC 2.0 controls map to APRA CPS 220 Risk Management. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

9
Controls Mapped
101
Gaps Found
5%
Coverage

Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

CMMC 2.0 maps to APRA CPS 220 Risk Management with 5% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 110 CMMC 2.0 controls identifies 105 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Access Control.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 110 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 9 of 9 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

Security Assessment(5 mappings)

CA.L2-3.12.1Security Control Assessment3 targets
CPS220-11Annual Audit Review of the Framework
CPS220-18Triennial Comprehensive Review of the Framework
CPS220-P47Minimum Assessment Required by the Framework Review
CA.L2-3.12.3Security Control Monitoring
CPS220-P48Assessment Following Material Change Outside the Review Cycle
CA.L2-3.12.4System Security Plan
CPS220-P35Required Content of Risk Management Policies and Procedures

Incident Response(1 mappings)

IR.L2-3.6.2Incident Reporting
CPS220-19APRA Notification of Framework Breach within 10 Business Days

Risk Assessment(3 mappings)

RA.L2-3.11.1Risk Assessments3 targets
CPS220-04Maintenance of a Risk Management Framework
CPS220-P22Framework Structure for Managing Each Material Risk
CPS220-P33Risks Arising from Strategic Objectives and the Business Plan
Coverage crosswalk

A CMMC 2.0 to APRA CPS 220 Risk Management crosswalk, built to order

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which APRA CPS 220 Risk Management controls your existing CMMC 2.0 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

CMMC 2.0 into APRA CPS 220 Risk Management
Not published yet

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.

APRA CPS 220 Risk Management into CMMC 2.0
Not published yet

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.

CMMC 2.0 to APRA CPS 220 Risk Management (built to order)
$299
per framework pair, one time
  • 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 5% in the header counts how many CMMC 2.0 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many APRA CPS 220 Risk Management 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.

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 686 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (309K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$149/month

Professional

  • Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • Unlimited full-text search
  • Framework self-assessment
  • PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

What are the key differences between CMMC 2.0 and APRA CPS 220 Risk Management?

CMMC 2.0 has 110 controls across its framework, while APRA CPS 220 Risk Management covers 40 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (5% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Access Control, where 22 CMMC 2.0 controls have no direct APRA CPS 220 Risk Management equivalent.

How many controls map between CMMC 2.0 and APRA CPS 220 Risk Management?

Of 110 total CMMC 2.0 controls, 5 map directly to APRA CPS 220 Risk Management controls, representing 5% coverage. The remaining 105 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping CMMC 2.0 to APRA CPS 220 Risk Management?

105 CMMC 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in APRA CPS 220 Risk Management. The highest concentration of gaps is in Access Control with 22 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 CMMC 2.0 and APRA CPS 220 Risk Management?

The domain with the highest gap count is Access Control (22 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

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.