Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO 27001:2022vsSOC 2

See exactly how ISO 27001:2022 controls map to SOC 2. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

369
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
99%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which SOC 2 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO 27001:2022 maps to SOC 2 with 99% coverage across 92 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 93 ISO 27001:2022 controls identifies 8 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Clause 9 – ISO 27001:2022.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 93 controls analysed | 704 frameworks | 306K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 369 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 306K+ mappings across 704 frameworks.

Organizational controls – ISO 27001:2022(20 mappings)

iso-27001-2022::5.1Policies for information security4 targets
SOC2-CC1.1COSO principle 1: Demonstrates commitment to integrity and ethical values
SOC2-CC2.2COSO principle 14: Internally communicates information including objectives and responsibilities
SOC2-CC5.3COSO principle 12: Deploys control activities through policies and procedures
SOC2-PI1.3System processing is complete, valid, accurate, timely, and authorized
iso-27001-2022::5.10Acceptable use of information and other associated assets5 targets
SOC2-C1.1Confidential information is identified and protected during receipt, processing, storage
SOC2-C1.2Confidential information is disposed of securely
SOC2-CC6.1Implements logical access security software, infrastructure and architectures over protected information assets
SOC2-CC6.3Role-based access and least privilege are enforced
SOC2-CC6.7Transmission of data is restricted to authorized users
iso-27001-2022::5.11Return of assets2 targets
SOC2-CC6.1Implements logical access security software, infrastructure and architectures over protected information assets
SOC2-CC6.5Discontinues logical and physical protections over physical assets only after the ability to read or recover data and software from those assets has been diminished and is no longer required to meet the entity's
iso-27001-2022::5.12Classification of information5 targets
SOC2-C1.1Confidential information is identified and protected during receipt, processing, storage
SOC2-CC2.1COSO principle 13: Obtains and generates relevant, quality information
SOC2-P3.1Personal information is collected consistent with privacy commitments
SOC2-P4.2Personal information is retained for only as long as needed
SOC2-PI1.1Obtains or generates and uses relevant quality information to support processing integrity
iso-27001-2022::5.13Labelling of information
SOC2-C1.1Confidential information is identified and protected during receipt, processing, storage
iso-27001-2022::5.14Information transfer3 targets
SOC2-C1.1Confidential information is identified and protected during receipt, processing, storage
SOC2-CC6.7Transmission of data is restricted to authorized users
SOC2-PI1.1Obtains or generates and uses relevant quality information to support processing integrity

+349 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 704 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

The ISO 27001:2022 to SOC 2 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which SOC 2 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 SOC 2 lands at 57.4%, while SOC 2 into ISO 27001:2022 lands at 48.4%, 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 SOC 2, the other asks the reverse.

ISO 27001:2022 into SOC 2
57.4%

35 of 61 SOC 2 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27001:2022. 26 are genuine gaps.

75.8%CC - Common Criteria (Security)
27.8%P - Privacy
100%A - Availability
100%C - Confidentiality
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 189 candidate mappings were examined and 102 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: SOC2-A1.1 Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments

Capacity management is how availability commitments are kept.

Grounded in iso-27001-2022::8.6 Capacity management. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: SOC2-CC1.2 COSO principle 2: Board exercises oversight responsibility

The board of directors demonstrates independence from management and exercises oversight of the development and performance of internal control

Every one of the 35 evidenced controls and 26 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

SOC 2 into ISO 27001:2022
48.4%

45 of 93 ISO 27001:2022 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for SOC 2. 48 are genuine gaps.

ISO 27001:2022 to SOC 2
$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 99% 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 SOC 2 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 704 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 704 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 SOC 2?

ISO 27001:2022 has 93 controls across its framework, while SOC 2 covers 61 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 92 overlapping controls (99% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 9 – ISO 27001:2022, where 5 ISO 27001:2022 controls have no direct SOC 2 equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2?

Of 93 total ISO 27001:2022 controls, 92 map directly to SOC 2 controls, representing 99% coverage. The remaining 8 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 SOC 2?

8 ISO 27001:2022 controls have no direct equivalent in SOC 2. 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 SOC 2?

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.