GDPRvsAfrican Union Malabo Convention
See exactly how GDPR controls map to African Union Malabo Convention. 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:
GDPR maps to African Union Malabo Convention with 38% coverage across 15 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 40 GDPR controls identifies 25 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Chapter IV - Controller and Processor.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 40 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 21 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Chapter III - Rights of the Data Subject(8 mappings)
Chapter IV - Controller and Processor(3 mappings)
Chapter V - Transfers of Personal Data(2 mappings)
Chapter II - Principles(7 mappings)
+1 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 686 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever, no credit card required
A GDPR to African Union Malabo Convention crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which African Union Malabo Convention controls your existing GDPR 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 38% in the header counts how many GDPR controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many African Union Malabo Convention 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 GDPR comparisons
Other African Union Malabo Convention comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (309K+)
- ✓ 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 GDPR and African Union Malabo Convention?
GDPR has 40 controls across its framework, while African Union Malabo Convention covers 28 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 15 overlapping controls (38% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Chapter IV - Controller and Processor, where 14 GDPR controls have no direct African Union Malabo Convention equivalent.
How many controls map between GDPR and African Union Malabo Convention?
Of 40 total GDPR controls, 15 map directly to African Union Malabo Convention controls, representing 38% coverage. The remaining 25 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping GDPR to African Union Malabo Convention?
25 GDPR controls have no direct equivalent in African Union Malabo Convention. The highest concentration of gaps is in Chapter IV - Controller and Processor with 14 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 GDPR and African Union Malabo Convention?
The domain with the highest gap count is Chapter IV - Controller and Processor (14 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.