Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO 22301:2019vsISO 27001:2022

See exactly how ISO 22301:2019 controls map to ISO 27001:2022. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

154
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
84%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which ISO 22301:2019 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO 22301:2019 maps to ISO 27001:2022 with 84% coverage across 48 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 57 ISO 22301:2019 controls identifies 9 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Context of the organization, ISO 22301:2019.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 57 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 154 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

Improvement, ISO 22301:2019(9 mappings)

iso-22301-2019::10.1Nonconformity and corrective action4 targets
iso-27001-2022::5.27Learning from information security incidents
iso-27001-2022::5.35Independent review of information security
iso-27001-2022::5.36Compliance with policies, rules and standards for information security
iso-27001-2022::8.32Change management
iso-22301-2019::10.2Continual improvement5 targets
iso-27001-2022::5.25Assessment and decision on information security events
iso-27001-2022::5.26Response to information security incidents
iso-27001-2022::5.27Learning from information security incidents
iso-27001-2022::5.35Independent review of information security
iso-27001-2022::5.36Compliance with policies, rules and standards for information security

Context of the organization, ISO 22301:2019(9 mappings)

iso-22301-2019::4.1Understanding the organization and its context
iso-27001-2022::5.31Legal, statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements
iso-22301-2019::4.2Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties
iso-27001-2022::5.31Legal, statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements
iso-22301-2019::4.2.2Legal and regulatory requirements3 targets
iso-27001-2022::5.31Legal, statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements
iso-27001-2022::5.34Privacy and protection of personal identifiable information (PII)
iso-27001-2022::5.5Contact with authorities
iso-22301-2019::4.4Business continuity management system4 targets
iso-27001-2022::5.1Policies for information security
iso-27001-2022::5.2Information security roles and responsibilities
iso-27001-2022::5.36Compliance with policies, rules and standards for information security
iso-27001-2022::5.37Documented operating procedures

Leadership, ISO 22301:2019(2 mappings)

iso-22301-2019::5.1Leadership and commitment2 targets
iso-27001-2022::5.1Policies for information security
iso-27001-2022::5.2Information security roles and responsibilities

+134 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

Coverage crosswalk

The ISO 22301:2019 to ISO 27001:2022 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO 27001:2022 controls your existing ISO 22301:2019 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

ISO 22301:2019 into ISO 27001:2022
Not published yet

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.

ISO 27001:2022 into ISO 22301:2019
33.3%

19 of 57 ISO 22301:2019 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27001:2022. 38 are genuine gaps.

52.6%Operation, ISO 22301:2019
50%Support, ISO 22301:2019
25%Performance evaluation, ISO 22301:2019
50%Improvement, ISO 22301:2019
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 120 candidate mappings were examined and 84 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: 10.1 Nonconformity and corrective action

Non-compliance found by the check drives cause analysis and corrective action, which is what 10.1 requires.

Grounded in iso-27001-2022::5.36 Compliance with policies, rules and standards for information security. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: 10.2 Continual improvement

Continually improve the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the BCMS using qualitative and quantitative measures, considering the results of analysis and evaluation and the outputs of management review to determine whether there are...

Every one of the 19 evidenced controls and 38 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

ISO 27001:2022 to ISO 22301:2019
$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 84% in the header counts how many ISO 22301:2019 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ISO 27001:2022 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

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 686 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (309K+)
  • 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 ISO 22301:2019 and ISO 27001:2022?

ISO 22301:2019 has 57 controls across its framework, while ISO 27001:2022 covers 93 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 48 overlapping controls (84% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Context of the organization, ISO 22301:2019, where 4 ISO 22301:2019 controls have no direct ISO 27001:2022 equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO 22301:2019 and ISO 27001:2022?

Of 57 total ISO 22301:2019 controls, 48 map directly to ISO 27001:2022 controls, representing 84% coverage. The remaining 9 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 22301:2019 to ISO 27001:2022?

9 ISO 22301:2019 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27001:2022. The highest concentration of gaps is in Context of the organization, ISO 22301:2019 with 4 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 ISO 22301:2019 and ISO 27001:2022?

The domain with the highest gap count is Context of the organization, ISO 22301:2019 (4 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.