Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO 22301:2019vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

See exactly how ISO 22301:2019 controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

55
Controls Mapped
2
Gaps Found
96%
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:

ISO 22301:2019 maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 96% coverage across 55 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 57 ISO 22301:2019 controls identifies 2 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Support, ISO 22301:2019.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 57 controls analysed | 969 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 205 control mappings across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 969 frameworks.

Improvement, ISO 22301:2019(13 mappings)

iso-22301-2019::10.1Nonconformity and corrective action8 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.OV-01Cybersecurity risk management strategy outcomes are reviewed to inform and adjust strategy and direction
→NIST-CSF-GV.OV-02The cybersecurity risk management strategy is reviewed and adjusted to ensure coverage of organizational requirements and risks
→NIST-CSF-GV.OV-03Organizational cybersecurity risk management performance is evaluated and reviewed for adjustments needed
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-07Strategic opportunities (i.e., positive risks) are characterized and are included in organizational cybersecurity risk discussions
→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-01Improvements are identified from evaluations
→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-02Improvements are identified from security tests and exercises, including those done in coordination with suppliers and relevant third parties
→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-03Improvements are identified from execution of operational processes, procedures, and activities
→NIST-CSF-RS.AN-08An incident's magnitude is estimated and validated
iso-22301-2019::10.2Continual improvement5 targets
→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-02Improvements are identified from security tests and exercises, including those done in coordination with suppliers and relevant third parties
→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-03Improvements are identified from execution of operational processes, procedures, and activities
→NIST-CSF-RS.AN-03Analysis is performed to establish what has taken place during an incident and the root cause of the incident
→NIST-CSF-RS.AN-08An incident's magnitude is estimated and validated
→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-02Incident reports are triaged and validated

Context of the organization, ISO 22301:2019(7 mappings)

iso-22301-2019::4.1Understanding the organization and its context4 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01The organizational mission is understood and informs cybersecurity risk management
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-02Internal and external stakeholders are understood, and their needs and expectations regarding cybersecurity risk management are understood and considered
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements regarding cybersecurity - including privacy and civil liberties obligations - are understood and managed
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-04Critical objectives, capabilities, and services that external stakeholders depend on or expect from the organization are understood and communicated
iso-22301-2019::4.2Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties3 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01The organizational mission is understood and informs cybersecurity risk management
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-02Internal and external stakeholders are understood, and their needs and expectations regarding cybersecurity risk management are understood and considered
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements regarding cybersecurity - including privacy and civil liberties obligations - are understood and managed

+185 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 969 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

The ISO 22301:2019 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 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.

Coverage does not run both ways. ISO 22301:2019 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 lands at 23.6%, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into ISO 22301:2019 lands at 47.4%, 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 ISO 22301:2019 evidence buys you for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, the other asks the reverse.

ISO 22301:2019 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
23.6%

25 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 22301:2019. 81 are genuine gaps.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into ISO 22301:2019
47.4%

27 of 57 ISO 22301:2019 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 30 are genuine gaps.

ISO 22301:2019 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 96% 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 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 969 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 969 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 ISO 22301:2019 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

ISO 22301:2019 has 57 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 55 overlapping controls (96% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Support, ISO 22301:2019, where 2 ISO 22301:2019 controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO 22301:2019 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 57 total ISO 22301:2019 controls, 55 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, representing 96% coverage. The remaining 2 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

2 ISO 22301:2019 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Support, ISO 22301:2019 with 2 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is Support, ISO 22301:2019 (2 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.