ISO 22320:2018vsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)
See exactly how ISO 22320:2018 controls map to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO 22320:2018 maps to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 16% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 37 ISO 22320:2018 controls identifies 31 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 4: Principles of Incident Management.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 37 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 6 of 6 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
Clause 5: Basic Components - Process and Structure(4 mappings)
Annexes: Guidance on Incident Management Planning(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO 22320:2018 comparisons
Other FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (330K+)
- ✓ 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 ISO 22320:2018 and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
ISO 22320:2018 has 37 controls across its framework, while FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) covers 11 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (16% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 4: Principles of Incident Management, where 8 ISO 22320:2018 controls have no direct FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO 22320:2018 and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
Of 37 total ISO 22320:2018 controls, 6 map directly to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls — representing 16% coverage. The remaining 31 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 22320:2018 to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
31 ISO 22320:2018 controls have no direct equivalent in FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 4: Principles of Incident Management with 8 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 22320:2018 and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 4: Principles of Incident Management (8 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.