Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO 27001:2022vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

See exactly how ISO 27001:2022 controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

350
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
97%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO 27001:2022 maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 97% coverage across 90 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 93 ISO 27001:2022 controls identifies 10 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Clause 9 – ISO 27001:2022.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 93 controls analysed | 691 frameworks | 306K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 350 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 306K+ mappings across 691 frameworks.

Organizational controls – ISO 27001:2022(20 mappings)

iso-27001-2022::5.1Policies for information security6 targets
NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01The organizational mission is understood and informs cybersecurity risk management
NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is established based on organizational context, cybersecurity strategy, and priorities and is communicated and enforced
NIST-CSF-GV.PO-02Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is reviewed, updated, communicated, and enforced to reflect changes in requirements, threats, technology, and organizational mission
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-01Risk management objectives are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-02Risk appetite and risk tolerance statements are established, communicated, and maintained
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction that describes appropriate risk response options is established and communicated
iso-27001-2022::5.10Acceptable use of information and other associated assets
NIST-CSF-GV.PO-02Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is reviewed, updated, communicated, and enforced to reflect changes in requirements, threats, technology, and organizational mission
iso-27001-2022::5.11Return of assets
NIST-CSF-GV.RR-04Cybersecurity is included in human resources practices
iso-27001-2022::5.12Classification of information2 targets
NIST-CSF-GV.OC-04Critical objectives, capabilities, and services that external stakeholders depend on or expect from the organization are understood and communicated
NIST-CSF-ID.AM-05Assets are prioritized based on classification, criticality, resources, and impact on the mission
iso-27001-2022::5.13Labelling of information
NIST-CSF-ID.AM-05Assets are prioritized based on classification, criticality, resources, and impact on the mission
iso-27001-2022::5.14Information transfer
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-02The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-transit are protected
iso-27001-2022::5.15Access control3 targets
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of least privilege and separation of duties
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-06Physical access to assets is managed, monitored, and enforced commensurate with risk
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-01Networks and environments are protected from unauthorized logical access and usage
iso-27001-2022::5.16Identity management4 targets
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed by the organization
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-03Users, services, and hardware are authenticated
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-04Identity assertions are protected, conveyed, and verified
iso-27001-2022::5.17Authentication information
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed by the organization

+330 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 691 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

The ISO 27001:2022 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.

ISO 27001:2022 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
68.9%

73 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27001:2022. 33 are genuine gaps.

86.4%PR - Protect
53.6%GV - Govern
71.4%ID - Identify
76.9%RS - Respond
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 291 candidate mappings were examined and 174 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

Monitoring activities analyses events for signs of adverse activity.

Grounded in iso-27001-2022::8.16 Monitoring activities. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04 The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood

The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood

Every one of the 73 evidenced controls and 33 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into ISO 27001:2022
63.4%

59 of 93 ISO 27001:2022 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 34 are genuine gaps.

67.6%Organizational controls
61.8%Technological controls
57.1%Physical controls
62.5%People controls
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 159 candidate mappings were examined and 68 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: 5.1 Policies for information security

An established cybersecurity policy set based on context is the same policy requirement.

Grounded in NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01 Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is established based on organizational context, cybersecurity strategy, and priorities and is communicated and enforced. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: 5.10 Acceptable use of information and other associated assets

Define and enforce rules for how information and assets may be used and handled.

Every one of the 59 evidenced controls and 34 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

ISO 27001:2022 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
$299
per framework pair, one time
  • 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 97% 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 691 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 691 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (306K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$149/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 27001:2022 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

ISO 27001:2022 has 93 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 90 overlapping controls (97% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 9 – ISO 27001:2022, where 5 ISO 27001:2022 controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO 27001:2022 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 93 total ISO 27001:2022 controls, 90 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, representing 97% coverage. The remaining 10 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

10 ISO 27001:2022 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 9 – ISO 27001:2022 with 5 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 9 – ISO 27001:2022 (5 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.