ISO 27017:2015vsISO 27018:2019
See exactly how ISO 27017:2015 controls map to ISO 27018:2019. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO 27017:2015 maps to ISO 27018:2019 with 51% coverage across 21 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 41 ISO 27017:2015 controls identifies 21 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Cloud sector-specific concepts – ISO 27017:2015.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 41 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 23 mapped controls across 10 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Cryptography – ISO 27017:2015(1 mappings)
Physical and environmental security – ISO 27017:2015(3 mappings)
Operations security – ISO 27017:2015(6 mappings)
Communications security – ISO 27017:2015(3 mappings)
Information security incident management – ISO 27017:2015(1 mappings)
Compliance – ISO 27017:2015(2 mappings)
Information security policies – ISO 27017:2015(1 mappings)
Organization of information security – ISO 27017:2015(1 mappings)
Human resource security – ISO 27017:2015(1 mappings)
Clause 9 – ISO 27017:2015(1 mappings)
+3 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
A ISO 27017:2015 to ISO 27018:2019 crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO 27018:2019 controls your existing ISO 27017:2015 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- 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 51% in the header counts how many ISO 27017:2015 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ISO 27018:2019 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 27017:2015 comparisons
Other ISO 27018:2019 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 (310K+)
- ✓ 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 27017:2015 and ISO 27018:2019?
ISO 27017:2015 has 41 controls across its framework, while ISO 27018:2019 covers 84 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 21 overlapping controls (51% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Cloud sector-specific concepts – ISO 27017:2015, where 5 ISO 27017:2015 controls have no direct ISO 27018:2019 equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO 27017:2015 and ISO 27018:2019?
Of 41 total ISO 27017:2015 controls, 21 map directly to ISO 27018:2019 controls, representing 51% coverage. The remaining 21 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 27017:2015 to ISO 27018:2019?
21 ISO 27017:2015 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27018:2019. The highest concentration of gaps is in Cloud sector-specific concepts – ISO 27017:2015 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 27017:2015 and ISO 27018:2019?
The domain with the highest gap count is Cloud sector-specific concepts – ISO 27017:2015 (5 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.