FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)vsISO 20000-1
See exactly how FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls map to ISO 20000-1. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) maps to ISO 20000-1 with 25% coverage across 8 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 32 FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls identifies 24 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Incident Response and Reporting.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 32 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 8 of 8 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Risk Assessment and Safeguard Design(4 mappings)
Incident Response and Reporting(4 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) comparisons
Other ISO 20000-1 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 FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and ISO 20000-1?
FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) has 32 controls across its framework, while ISO 20000-1 covers 19 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (25% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Incident Response and Reporting, where 12 FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct ISO 20000-1 equivalent.
How many controls map between FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and ISO 20000-1?
Of 32 total FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls, 8 map directly to ISO 20000-1 controls — representing 25% coverage. The remaining 24 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) to ISO 20000-1?
24 FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 20000-1. The highest concentration of gaps is in Incident Response and Reporting with 12 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 FTC Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) and ISO 20000-1?
The domain with the highest gap count is Incident Response and Reporting (12 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.