Cross-Framework Mapping

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.

160
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
64%
Coverage

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 | 868 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 160 mapped controls across 12 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 868 frameworks.

Access Control(20 mappings)

AC.L2-3.1.1Authorized Access Control3 targets
→ASBv3-PA-7Follow just enough administration (least privilege) principle
→IM-1Use centralized identity and authentication system
→IM-7Restrict resource access based on conditions
AC.L2-3.1.12Control Remote Access2 targets
→ASBv3-PA-6Use privileged access workstations
→IM-7Restrict resource access based on conditions
AC.L2-3.1.13Remote Access Confidentiality2 targets
→ASBv3-NS-9Connect on-premises or cloud network privately
→DP-3Encrypt sensitive data in transit
AC.L2-3.1.14Remote Access Routing2 targets
→ASBv3-NS-9Connect on-premises or cloud network privately
→NS-3Deploy firewall at the edge of enterprise network
AC.L2-3.1.15Privileged Remote Access2 targets
→ASBv3-PA-6Use privileged access workstations
→PA-2Avoid standing access for user accounts and permissions
AC.L2-3.1.2Transaction & Function Control2 targets
→ASBv3-AM-4Limit access to asset management
→ASBv3-PA-7Follow just enough administration (least privilege) principle
AC.L2-3.1.20External Connections2 targets
→ASBv3-PA-8Determine access process for cloud provider support
→NS-2Secure cloud services with network controls
AC.L2-3.1.3Control CUI Flow2 targets
→NS-1Establish network segmentation boundaries
→NS-2Secure cloud services with network controls
AC.L2-3.1.4Separation of Duties2 targets
→ASBv3-GS-2Define and implement enterprise segmentation/separation of duties strategy
→PA-1Separate and limit highly privileged/administrative users
AC.L2-3.1.5Least Privilege
→ASBv3-GS-6Define and implement identity and privileged access strategy

+140 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 868 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

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.

CMMC 2.0 into Azure Security Benchmark
38.8%

33 of 85 Azure Security Benchmark controls are evidenced by work you have already done for CMMC 2.0. 52 are genuine gaps.

Azure Security Benchmark into CMMC 2.0
45.5%

50 of 110 CMMC 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Azure Security Benchmark. 60 are genuine gaps.

CMMC 2.0 to Azure Security Benchmark
$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 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.

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

Cross-framework mappings across 868 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 868 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
  • ✓ 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 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.

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.