Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO 26000:2010vsAS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence

See exactly how ISO 26000:2010 controls map to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

5
Controls Mapped
55
Gaps Found
3%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO 26000:2010 maps to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence with 3% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 60 ISO 26000:2010 controls identifies 58 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 4: Principles of Social Responsibility.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 60 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 5 of 5 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Clause 6: Core Subjects - Fair Operating Practices, Consumer Issues, Community Involvement (6.6-6.8)(5 mappings)

ISO-26000-6.6Fair operating practices2 targets
AS9100D-8.4Control of Externally Provided Processes, Products, Services
ISO27003-8.1Operational Planning and Control
ISO-26000-6.7Consumer issues3 targets
8.3Statement of Applicability linkage
AS9100D-5.1Leadership and Commitment
AS9100D-8.5Production and Service Provision

Related Comparisons

Other ISO 26000:2010 comparisons

Other AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 718 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/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 26000:2010 and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

ISO 26000:2010 has 60 controls across its framework, while AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence covers 42 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (3% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 4: Principles of Social Responsibility, where 8 ISO 26000:2010 controls have no direct AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO 26000:2010 and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

Of 60 total ISO 26000:2010 controls, 2 map directly to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls — representing 3% coverage. The remaining 58 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 26000:2010 to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

58 ISO 26000:2010 controls have no direct equivalent in AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 4: Principles of Social Responsibility 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 26000:2010 and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 4: Principles of Social Responsibility (8 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.