Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO 27001:2022vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

Name: ISO 27001:2022 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Control Mapping Dataset
Creator: TheArtOfService

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

Controls Mapped

Gaps Found

20%

Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO 27001:2022 maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 20% coverage across 19 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 95 ISO 27001:2022 controls identifies 76 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in A.5 Organizational Controls.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 95 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 39 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

A.5 Organizational Controls(20 mappings)

ISO27001-A.5.17Credential and secret management2 targets

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed

→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-02Identities are proofed and bound to credentials based on the context of interactions

ISO27001-A.5.19Third-party security risk management3 targets

→NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01Cybersecurity supply chain risk management program is established

→NIST-CSF-ID.AM-04Inventories of services provided by suppliers are maintained

→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-10Critical suppliers are assessed on the basis of their risk

ISO27001-A.5.20Security clauses in supplier contracts3 targets

→NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01Cybersecurity supply chain risk management program is established

→NIST-CSF-ID.AM-04Inventories of services provided by suppliers are maintained

→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-10Critical suppliers are assessed on the basis of their risk

ISO27001-A.5.22Supplier performance and change monitoring3 targets

→NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01Cybersecurity supply chain risk management program is established

→NIST-CSF-ID.AM-04Inventories of services provided by suppliers are maintained

→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-10Critical suppliers are assessed on the basis of their risk

ISO27001-A.5.24Incident response planning and readiness3 targets

→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-04Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans are established and maintained

→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed

→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-01The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties

ISO27001-A.5.26Incident containment and remediation3 targets

→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-04Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans are established and maintained

→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed

→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-01The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties

ISO27001-A.5.27Post-incident review and improvement3 targets

→NIST-CSF-ID.IM-04Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans are established and maintained

→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed

→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-01The incident response plan is executed in coordination with relevant third parties

+19 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 693 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

Other ISO 27001:2022 comparisons

ISO 27001:2022 vs CSA CCM v430 mappings ISO 27001:2022 vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange26 mappings ISO 27001:2022 vs ASD Information Security Manual (ISM)24 mappings ISO 27001:2022 vs UK Gambling Commission — Cyber Resilience Requirements23 mappings ISO 27001:2022 vs Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF)22 mappings ISO 27001:2022 vs NIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security22 mappings ISO 27001:2022 vs FAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation22 mappings ISO 27001:2022 vs NIS2 Directive Implementing Acts21 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

✓ 693 framework browser
✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
✓ 824 compliance assessments
✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day

Get Started Free

Recommended

$49/month

Professional

✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
✓ Unlimited full-text search
✓ Framework self-assessment
✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports

Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53 ISO 27001 vs NIST CSF CMMC vs NIST 800-53 FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53 NIST CSF vs SOC 2 HIPAA vs NIST 800-53 ISO 27001 vs SOC 2 ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between ISO 27001:2022 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

ISO 27001:2022 has 95 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 103 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 19 overlapping controls (20% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in A.5 Organizational Controls, where 31 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 95 total ISO 27001:2022 controls, 19 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls — representing 20% coverage. The remaining 76 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?

76 ISO 27001:2022 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in A.5 Organizational Controls with 31 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 A.5 Organizational Controls (31 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

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.