Cross-Framework Mapping

DORAvsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

Name: DORA to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Control Mapping Dataset
Creator: TheArtOfService

See exactly how DORA controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

Controls Mapped

Gaps Found

42%

Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

DORA maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 42% coverage across 11 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 26 DORA controls identifies 15 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 26 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 12 of 12 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

DORA Chapter II: ICT Risk Management(10 mappings)

DORA-Art.10Detection

→NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events

DORA-Art.11Response and recovery2 targets

→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed

→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-01The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties

DORA-Art.12Backup policies and procedures, restoration and recovery

→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-11Backups of data are created, protected, maintained, and tested

DORA-Art.13Learning and evolving

→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-01Improvements are identified from security test and exercise results

DORA-Art.14Communication

→NIST-CSF-RS.CO-02Internal and external stakeholders are notified of incidents

DORA-Art.5Governance and organisation

→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-01Risk management objectives are established and agreed upon

DORA-Art.6ICT risk management framework

→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-01Risk management objectives are established and agreed upon

DORA-Art.8Identification

→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-01Vulnerabilities in assets are identified, validated, and recorded

DORA-Art.9Protection and prevention

→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected

DORA Chapter III: ICT-Related Incident Management(2 mappings)

DORA-Art.17ICT-related incident management process

→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-01The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties

DORA-Art.19Reporting of major ICT-related incidents

→NIST-CSF-RS.CO-02Internal and external stakeholders are notified of incidents

Related Comparisons

Other DORA comparisons

DORA vs EIOPA Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance (EIOPA-BoS-20/600)12 mappings DORA vs EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2)8 mappings DORA vs EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management (EBA/GL/2024/07)8 mappings DORA vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 56 mappings DORA vs EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA)2 mappings DORA vs EU Cyber Solidarity Act (Regulation (EU) 2025/38)2 mappings DORA vs EU Chips Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/1781)2 mappings DORA vs ECB TIBER-EU Framework2 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

✓ 718 framework browser
✓ Cross-framework mappings (330K+)
✓ 824 compliance assessments
✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day

Get Started Free

Recommended

$49/month

Professional

✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
✓ Unlimited full-text search
✓ Framework self-assessment
✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports

Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53 ISO 27001 vs NIST CSF CMMC vs NIST 800-53 FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53 NIST CSF vs SOC 2 HIPAA vs NIST 800-53 ISO 27001 vs SOC 2 ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between DORA and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

DORA has 26 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 11 overlapping controls (42% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management, where 4 DORA controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between DORA and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 26 total DORA controls, 11 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls — representing 42% coverage. The remaining 15 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping DORA to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

15 DORA controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management with 4 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 DORA and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management (4 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

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.