Cross-Framework Mapping

FedRAMP ModeratevsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

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

552
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
72%
Coverage

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

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

FedRAMP Moderate maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 72% coverage across 234 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 323 FedRAMP Moderate controls identifies 89 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in AC - Access Control.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 323 controls analysed | 868 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 552 mapped controls across 18 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 868 frameworks.

AC - Access Control(20 mappings)

AC-1Policy and Procedures
→NIST-CSF-GV.PO-02Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is reviewed, updated, communicated, and enforced to reflect changes in requirements, threats, technology, and organizational mission
AC-17Remote Access
→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-01Networks and environments are protected from unauthorized logical access and usage
AC-17(1)Monitoring and Control4 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09Computing hardware and software, runtime environments, and their data are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-01Networks and environments are protected from unauthorized logical access and usage
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-04Log records are generated and made available for continuous monitoring
AC-17(2)Protection of Confidentiality and Integrity Using Encryption3 targets
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-02The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-10The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected
AC-18(1)Authentication and Encryption2 targets
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03Users, services, and hardware are authenticated
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-02The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected
AC-19(5)Full Device or Container-Based Encryption
→NIST-CSF-PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected
AC-2Account Management2 targets
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed by the organization
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of least privilege and separation of duties
AC-2(12)Account Monitoring for Atypical Usage
→NIST-CSF-DE.CM-03Personnel activity and technology usage are monitored to find potentially adverse events
AC-2(13)Disable Accounts for High-Risk Individuals
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed by the organization
AC-2(3)Disable Accounts
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed by the organization
AC-2(4)Automated Audit Actions3 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.CM-03Personnel activity and technology usage are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-04Log records are generated and made available for continuous monitoring
→NIST-CSF-RS.AN-07Incident data and metadata are collected, and their integrity and provenance are preserved

+532 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 FedRAMP Moderate to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls your existing FedRAMP Moderate work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

Coverage does not run both ways. FedRAMP Moderate into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 lands at 63.2%, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into FedRAMP Moderate lands at 21.4%, on the same two control sets. That is not a rounding difference. It is the whole reason these are two separate reports: one asks what your FedRAMP Moderate evidence buys you for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, the other asks the reverse.

FedRAMP Moderate into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
63.2%

67 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for FedRAMP Moderate. 39 are genuine gaps.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into FedRAMP Moderate
21.4%

69 of 323 FedRAMP Moderate controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 254 are genuine gaps.

FedRAMP Moderate to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 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 72% in the header counts how many FedRAMP Moderate controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 FedRAMP Moderate and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

FedRAMP Moderate has 323 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 234 overlapping controls (72% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in AC - Access Control, where 22 FedRAMP Moderate controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between FedRAMP Moderate and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 323 total FedRAMP Moderate controls, 234 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, representing 72% coverage. The remaining 89 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

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

89 FedRAMP Moderate controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in AC - Access Control with 22 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 FedRAMP Moderate and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is AC - Access Control (22 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.