CMMC 2.0vsAzure Security Benchmark
See exactly how CMMC 2.0 controls map to Azure Security Benchmark. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which Azure Security Benchmark controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
CMMC 2.0 maps to Azure Security Benchmark with 64% coverage across 70 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 110 CMMC 2.0 controls identifies 40 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Access Control.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 110 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 160 mapped controls across 12 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Access Control(20 mappings)
+140 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 CMMC 2.0 to Azure Security Benchmark crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which Azure Security Benchmark 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.
33 of 85 Azure Security Benchmark controls are evidenced by work you have already done for CMMC 2.0. 52 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
The same practice requires maintaining inventories of organizational systems
Grounded in CM.L2-3.4.1 System Baselining. 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 33 evidenced controls and 52 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
50 of 110 CMMC 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Azure Security Benchmark. 60 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Role based access control grants access only to authorised principals.
Grounded in ASBv3-PA-7 Follow just enough administration (least privilege) principle. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Lock the user session after a defined period of inactivity and conceal previously displayed content behind a pattern hiding display until the user reauthenticates.
Every one of the 50 evidenced controls and 60 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 64% 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 Azure Security Benchmark 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 CMMC 2.0 comparisons
Other Azure Security Benchmark 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 CMMC 2.0 and Azure Security Benchmark?
CMMC 2.0 has 110 controls across its framework, while Azure Security Benchmark covers 85 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 70 overlapping controls (64% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Access Control, where 9 CMMC 2.0 controls have no direct Azure Security Benchmark equivalent.
How many controls map between CMMC 2.0 and Azure Security Benchmark?
Of 110 total CMMC 2.0 controls, 70 map directly to Azure Security Benchmark controls, representing 64% coverage. The remaining 40 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 Azure Security Benchmark?
40 CMMC 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in Azure Security Benchmark. The highest concentration of gaps is in Access Control with 9 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 Azure Security Benchmark?
The domain with the highest gap count is Access Control (9 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.