ISO 27018:2019vsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1
See exactly how ISO 27018:2019 controls map to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 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 27018:2019 maps to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 with 12% coverage across 10 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 84 ISO 27018:2019 controls identifies 74 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Access control – ISO 27018:2019.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 84 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 12 of 12 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Physical and environmental security – ISO 27018:2019(2 mappings)
Operations security – ISO 27018:2019(5 mappings)
Clause 13 – ISO 27018:2019(2 mappings)
Organization of information security – ISO 27018:2019(1 mappings)
Access control – ISO 27018:2019(2 mappings)
A ISO 27018:2019 to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls your existing ISO 27018:2019 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 12% in the header counts how many ISO 27018:2019 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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 27018:2019 comparisons
Other Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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 27018:2019 and Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?
ISO 27018:2019 has 84 controls across its framework, while Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 197 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 10 overlapping controls (12% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Access control – ISO 27018:2019, where 14 ISO 27018:2019 controls have no direct Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO 27018:2019 and Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?
Of 84 total ISO 27018:2019 controls, 10 map directly to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls, representing 12% coverage. The remaining 74 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 27018:2019 to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?
74 ISO 27018:2019 controls have no direct equivalent in Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. The highest concentration of gaps is in Access control – ISO 27018:2019 with 14 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 27018:2019 and Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?
The domain with the highest gap count is Access control – ISO 27018:2019 (14 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.