Cross-Framework Mapping

CMMC 2.0vsNIST SP 800-172

See exactly how CMMC 2.0 controls map to NIST SP 800-172. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

65
Controls Mapped
45
Gaps Found
45%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which CMMC 2.0 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

CMMC 2.0 maps to NIST SP 800-172 with 45% coverage across 50 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 110 CMMC 2.0 controls identifies 60 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 65 mapped controls across 13 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

Access Control(8 mappings)

AC.L2-3.1.1Authorized Access Control
3.1.2eRestrict Access to Organization-Owned, Provisioned, or Issued Information Resources
AC.L2-3.1.18Mobile Device Connection
3.1.2eRestrict Access to Organization-Owned, Provisioned, or Issued Information Resources
AC.L2-3.1.20External Connections
3.1.2eRestrict Access to Organization-Owned, Provisioned, or Issued Information Resources
AC.L2-3.1.21Portable Storage Use
3.1.2eRestrict Access to Organization-Owned, Provisioned, or Issued Information Resources
AC.L2-3.1.22Control Public Information
3.14.5eReview Persistent Storage and Remove CUI No Longer Needed
AC.L2-3.1.3Control CUI Flow
3.1.3eEmploy Secure Information Transfer Solutions
AC.L2-3.1.4Separation of Duties
3.1.1eDual Authorization for Sensitive System Operations
AC.L2-3.1.5Least Privilege
3.13.2eIntroduce Unpredictability into System Operations

Awareness and Training(4 mappings)

AT.L2-3.2.1Role-Based Risk Awareness
3.2.1eProvide Awareness Training on Advanced Persistent Threat
AT.L2-3.2.2Role-Based Training
3.2.2ePractical Exercises in Awareness Training
AT.L2-3.2.3Insider Threat Awareness2 targets
3.2.1eProvide Awareness Training on Advanced Persistent Threat
3.9.2eInsider Threat Program

Audit and Accountability(3 mappings)

AU.L2-3.3.5Audit Correlation2 targets
3.11.2eThreat Hunting
3.11.3eAdvanced Automation and Analytics Capabilities
AU.L2-3.3.6Reduction & Reporting
3.11.3eAdvanced Automation and Analytics Capabilities

Security Assessment(5 mappings)

CA.L2-3.12.1Security Control Assessment2 targets
3.11.5eAssess Effectiveness of Security Solutions
3.14.7eVerify Correctness of Security Functions
CA.L2-3.12.3Security Control Monitoring2 targets
3.11.5eAssess Effectiveness of Security Solutions
3.14.2eMonitor Organizational Systems with Specialized Capabilities
CA.L2-3.12.4System Security Plan
3.11.4eSecurity Solution Rationale Document

+45 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

Coverage crosswalk

The CMMC 2.0 to NIST SP 800-172 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST SP 800-172 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 NIST SP 800-172
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.

NIST SP 800-172 into CMMC 2.0
18.2%

20 of 110 CMMC 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST SP 800-172. 90 are genuine gaps.

13.6%Access Control
100%Awareness and Training
75%Security Assessment
33.3%Configuration Management
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 57 candidate mappings were examined and 9 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: AC.L2-3.1.20 External Connections

Restricting access to only organization owned, provisioned or issued resources controls external system connections.

Grounded in 3.1.2e Restrict Access to Organization-Owned, Provisioned, or Issued Information Resources. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: AC.L2-3.1.1 Authorized Access Control

Restrict system access so only identified, authorized users, the processes running on their behalf, and approved devices including other connected systems can connect.

Every one of the 20 evidenced controls and 90 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIST SP 800-172 to CMMC 2.0
$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 45% 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 NIST SP 800-172 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 NIST SP 800-172?

CMMC 2.0 has 110 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-172 covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 50 overlapping controls (45% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Access Control, where 14 CMMC 2.0 controls have no direct NIST SP 800-172 equivalent.

How many controls map between CMMC 2.0 and NIST SP 800-172?

Of 110 total CMMC 2.0 controls, 50 map directly to NIST SP 800-172 controls, representing 45% coverage. The remaining 60 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 NIST SP 800-172?

60 CMMC 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-172. The highest concentration of gaps is in Access Control with 14 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 NIST SP 800-172?

The domain with the highest gap count is Access Control (14 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.