EU Cyber Resilience ActvsETSI EN 303 645
See exactly how EU Cyber Resilience Act controls map to ETSI EN 303 645. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
EU Cyber Resilience Act maps to ETSI EN 303 645 with 11% coverage across 18 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 164 EU Cyber Resilience Act controls identifies 208 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Manufacturer obligations (Article 13) – EU Cyber Resilience Act.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 164 controls analysed | 868 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 57 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 868 frameworks.
Annex I Part I essential cybersecurity requirements – EU Cyber Resilience Act(20 mappings)
+37 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
A EU Cyber Resilience Act to ETSI EN 303 645 crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ETSI EN 303 645 controls your existing EU Cyber Resilience Act work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
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.
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.
- 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 11% in the header counts how many EU Cyber Resilience Act controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ETSI EN 303 645 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 EU Cyber Resilience Act comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 868 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 868 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
- ✓ 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 EU Cyber Resilience Act and ETSI EN 303 645?
EU Cyber Resilience Act has 164 controls across its framework, while ETSI EN 303 645 covers 93 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 18 overlapping controls (11% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Manufacturer obligations (Article 13) – EU Cyber Resilience Act, where 28 EU Cyber Resilience Act controls have no direct ETSI EN 303 645 equivalent.
How many controls map between EU Cyber Resilience Act and ETSI EN 303 645?
Of 164 total EU Cyber Resilience Act controls, 18 map directly to ETSI EN 303 645 controls, representing 11% coverage. The remaining 208 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping EU Cyber Resilience Act to ETSI EN 303 645?
208 EU Cyber Resilience Act controls have no direct equivalent in ETSI EN 303 645. The highest concentration of gaps is in Manufacturer obligations (Article 13) – EU Cyber Resilience Act with 28 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 EU Cyber Resilience Act and ETSI EN 303 645?
The domain with the highest gap count is Manufacturer obligations (Article 13) – EU Cyber Resilience Act (28 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.