Cross-Framework Mapping

FedRAMP Rev 5vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

Name: FedRAMP Rev 5 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Control Mapping Dataset
Creator: TheArtOfService

See exactly how FedRAMP Rev 5 controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

Controls Mapped

Gaps Found

45%

Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

FedRAMP Rev 5 maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 45% coverage across 29 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 64 FedRAMP Rev 5 controls identifies 35 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Access Control and Authentication.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 64 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 60 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

System Protection and Communications(10 mappings)

3.10Physical and Environmental Protection

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-06Physical access to assets is managed, monitored, and enforced

FEDRAMP-CM-1Configuration Management Policy

→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied

FEDRAMP-CM-2Baseline Configuration

→NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01Configuration management practices are established and applied

FEDRAMP-CM-6Configuration Settings2 targets

→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

FEDRAMP-CP-9System Backup5 targets

→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

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

→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-06End-of-recovery is declared based on criteria and documentation

→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-05Criteria for initiating incident recovery are applied

Access Control and Authentication(10 mappings)

CJIS-5Identification and Authentication2 targets

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions

FEDRAMP-AC-1Access Control Policy and Procedures2 targets

→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

FEDRAMP-AC-2Account Management2 targets

→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

ICS-AC-1Role-based access control

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

ICS-AC-2Authentication mechanisms2 targets

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions

ICS-AC-3Account management

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

+40 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 693 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

Other FedRAMP Rev 5 comparisons

FedRAMP Rev 5 vs South Korea ISMS-P37 mappings FedRAMP Rev 5 vs FAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation35 mappings FedRAMP Rev 5 vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange35 mappings FedRAMP Rev 5 vs CSA CCM v434 mappings FedRAMP Rev 5 vs ASD Information Security Manual (ISM)34 mappings FedRAMP Rev 5 vs CSA STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk)33 mappings FedRAMP Rev 5 vs NIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security33 mappings FedRAMP Rev 5 vs PAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments33 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

✓ 693 framework browser
✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
✓ 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 FedRAMP Rev 5 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

FedRAMP Rev 5 has 64 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 103 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 29 overlapping controls (45% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Access Control and Authentication, where 10 FedRAMP Rev 5 controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between FedRAMP Rev 5 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 64 total FedRAMP Rev 5 controls, 29 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls — representing 45% coverage. The remaining 35 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping FedRAMP Rev 5 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

35 FedRAMP Rev 5 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Access Control and Authentication with 10 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 Rev 5 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is Access Control and Authentication (10 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.