ETSI EN 303 645vsISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM)
See exactly how ETSI EN 303 645 controls map to ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ETSI EN 303 645 maps to ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM) with 16% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 31 ETSI EN 303 645 controls identifies 26 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in ETSI EN 303 645: Operations Security.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 31 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
ETSI EN 303 645: Information Security Policies(3 mappings)
ETSI EN 303 645: Asset Management(3 mappings)
ETSI EN 303 645: Access Control(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ETSI EN 303 645 comparisons
Other ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 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 ETSI EN 303 645 and ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM)?
ETSI EN 303 645 has 31 controls across its framework, while ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM) covers 21 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (16% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in ETSI EN 303 645: Operations Security, where 6 ETSI EN 303 645 controls have no direct ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM) equivalent.
How many controls map between ETSI EN 303 645 and ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM)?
Of 31 total ETSI EN 303 645 controls, 5 map directly to ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM) controls — representing 16% coverage. The remaining 26 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ETSI EN 303 645 to ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM)?
26 ETSI EN 303 645 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM). The highest concentration of gaps is in ETSI EN 303 645: Operations Security with 6 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 ETSI EN 303 645 and ISO 19650 — Organisation and Digitisation of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works (BIM)?
The domain with the highest gap count is ETSI EN 303 645: Operations Security (6 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.