ISO 27001:2022vsAzure Security Benchmark
See exactly how ISO 27001:2022 controls map to Azure Security Benchmark. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which Azure Security Benchmark controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO 27001:2022 maps to Azure Security Benchmark with 65% coverage across 60 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 93 ISO 27001:2022 controls identifies 40 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 161 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Organizational controls – ISO 27001:2022(20 mappings)
+141 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 Azure Security Benchmark crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which Azure Security Benchmark 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 Azure Security Benchmark lands at 61.2%, while Azure Security Benchmark into ISO 27001:2022 lands at 41.9%, 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 Azure Security Benchmark, the other asks the reverse.
52 of 85 Azure Security Benchmark controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27001:2022. 33 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
An inventory of information and associated assets with owners must be maintained.
Grounded in iso-27001-2022::5.9 Inventory of information and other associated assets. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Restrict deployment to approved Azure services using Azure Policy and management group hierarchy with documented exceptions.
Every one of the 52 evidenced controls and 33 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
39 of 93 ISO 27001:2022 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Azure Security Benchmark. 54 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Discovery and classification of sensitive data is the classification activity required.
Grounded in ASBv3-DP-1 Discover, classify, and label sensitive data. 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 39 evidenced controls and 54 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 65% 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 Azure Security Benchmark 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 Azure Security Benchmark 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 Azure Security Benchmark?
ISO 27001:2022 has 93 controls across its framework, while Azure Security Benchmark covers 85 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 60 overlapping controls (65% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Physical controls – ISO 27001:2022, where 13 ISO 27001:2022 controls have no direct Azure Security Benchmark equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO 27001:2022 and Azure Security Benchmark?
Of 93 total ISO 27001:2022 controls, 60 map directly to Azure Security Benchmark controls, representing 65% coverage. The remaining 40 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 Azure Security Benchmark?
40 ISO 27001:2022 controls have no direct equivalent in Azure Security Benchmark. The highest concentration of gaps is in Physical controls – ISO 27001:2022 with 13 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 Azure Security Benchmark?
The domain with the highest gap count is Physical controls – ISO 27001:2022 (13 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.