ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road VehiclesvsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production
See exactly how ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls map to IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles maps to IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production with 3% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 206 ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls identifies 238 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Superseded batch representation – ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 206 controls analysed | 868 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 868 frameworks.
ISO 26262-11:2018 Guidelines on application of ISO 26262 to semiconductors – ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles(1 mappings)
ISO 26262-2:2018 Management of functional safety – ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles(1 mappings)
ISO 26262-5:2018 Product development at the hardware level – ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles(1 mappings)
ISO 26262-7:2018 Production, operation, service and decommissioning – ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles(1 mappings)
ISO 26262-8:2018 Supporting processes – ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles(3 mappings)
A ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles to IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls your existing ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
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.
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.
- 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 3% in the header counts how many ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production 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.
Related Comparisons
Other ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles comparisons
Other IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 868 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 868 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
- ✓ 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 IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production?
ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles has 206 controls across its framework, while IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production covers 115 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (3% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Superseded batch representation – ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles, where 69 ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls have no direct IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles and IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production?
Of 206 total ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls, 7 map directly to IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls, representing 3% coverage. The remaining 238 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 IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production?
238 ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles controls have no direct equivalent in IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production. The highest concentration of gaps is in Superseded batch representation – ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles with 69 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 IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production?
The domain with the highest gap count is Superseded batch representation – ISO 26262:2018 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles (69 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.