ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road VehiclesvsAS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence
See exactly how ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls map to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles maps to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence with 3% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 69 ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls identifies 67 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Part 8: Supporting Processes.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 69 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 2 of 2 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
Part 3: Concept Phase(1 mappings)
Part 8: Supporting Processes(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles 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.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 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 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?
ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles has 69 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 Part 8: Supporting Processes, where 9 ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls have no direct AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?
Of 69 total ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls, 2 map directly to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls — representing 3% coverage. The remaining 67 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?
67 ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls have no direct equivalent in AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. The highest concentration of gaps is in Part 8: Supporting Processes with 9 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 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?
The domain with the highest gap count is Part 8: Supporting Processes (9 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.