ISO 27001:2022vsAWS Well-Architected Security Pillar
See exactly how ISO 27001:2022 controls map to AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO 27001:2022 maps to AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar with 66% coverage across 61 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 93 ISO 27001:2022 controls identifies 39 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Physical controls – ISO 27001:2022.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 93 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 144 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Organizational controls – ISO 27001:2022(20 mappings)
+124 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 686 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever, no credit card required
The ISO 27001:2022 to AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls your existing ISO 27001:2022 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 27001:2022 into AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar lands at 54%, while AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar into ISO 27001:2022 lands at 36.6%, 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 27001:2022 evidence buys you for AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar, the other asks the reverse.
34 of 63 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27001:2022. 29 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Incident roles and readiness planning names responders and external contacts.
Grounded in iso-27001-2022::5.24 Information security incident management planning and preparation. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Pre-provision the access incident responders need, using temporary credentials and prepared elevation paths so investigation is not delayed by access requests during an event.
Every one of the 34 evidenced controls and 29 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
34 of 93 ISO 27001:2022 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar. 59 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Documented classification scheme with handling rules, owners and legal obligations is the artefact assessors test.
Grounded in SEC07-BP01 Understand your data classification scheme. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Write, approve and publish a top-level security policy plus topic-specific policies, and review them on a set cadence and after major change.
Every one of the 34 evidenced controls and 59 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
- 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 66% in the header counts how many ISO 27001:2022 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar 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 27001:2022 comparisons
Other AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (309K+)
- ✓ 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 27001:2022 and AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar?
ISO 27001:2022 has 93 controls across its framework, while AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar covers 63 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 61 overlapping controls (66% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Physical controls – ISO 27001:2022, where 14 ISO 27001:2022 controls have no direct AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO 27001:2022 and AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar?
Of 93 total ISO 27001:2022 controls, 61 map directly to AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar controls, representing 66% coverage. The remaining 39 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 27001:2022 to AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar?
39 ISO 27001:2022 controls have no direct equivalent in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar. The highest concentration of gaps is in Physical controls – ISO 27001:2022 with 14 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 27001:2022 and AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar?
The domain with the highest gap count is Physical controls – ISO 27001:2022 (14 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.