Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO 31000:2018vsISO/IEC 27003:2017

See exactly how ISO 31000:2018 controls map to ISO/IEC 27003:2017. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

11
Controls Mapped
46
Gaps Found
12%
Coverage

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 31000:2018 maps to ISO/IEC 27003:2017 with 12% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 57 ISO 31000:2018 controls identifies 50 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Process – ISO 31000:2018.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 57 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

Principles(2 mappings)

4.hContinual improvement2 targets
27003-10.2Continual Improvement
ISO27003-10.1Continual Improvement

Process(1 mappings)

6.7Conducting Audit Follow-up
ISO27003-4.3Determining the Scope of the ISMS

Framework – ISO 31000:2018(4 mappings)

iso-31000-2018::5.2Leadership and commitment2 targets
27003-5.1Leadership and Commitment
ISO27003-5.1Leadership and Commitment
iso-31000-2018::5.4.1Understanding the organization and its context2 targets
27003-4.1Understanding the Organization and Its Context
ISO27003-4.1Understanding the Organization and Its Context

Process – ISO 31000:2018(4 mappings)

iso-31000-2018::6.2Communication and consultation2 targets
27003-7.4Communication
ISO27003-7.4Communication
iso-31000-2018::6.4Risk assessment
27003-8.2Risk Assessment Performance
iso-31000-2018::6.5Risk treatment
27003-8.3Risk Treatment Implementation
Coverage crosswalk

A ISO 31000:2018 to ISO/IEC 27003:2017 crosswalk, built to order

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO/IEC 27003:2017 controls your existing ISO 31000:2018 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

ISO 31000:2018 into ISO/IEC 27003:2017
Not published yet

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.

ISO/IEC 27003:2017 into ISO 31000:2018
Not published yet

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.

ISO 31000:2018 to ISO/IEC 27003:2017 (built to order)
$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 12% in the header counts how many ISO 31000:2018 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ISO/IEC 27003:2017 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 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 686 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
  • 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 31000:2018 and ISO/IEC 27003:2017?

ISO 31000:2018 has 57 controls across its framework, while ISO/IEC 27003:2017 covers 47 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (12% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Process – ISO 31000:2018, where 15 ISO 31000:2018 controls have no direct ISO/IEC 27003:2017 equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO 31000:2018 and ISO/IEC 27003:2017?

Of 57 total ISO 31000:2018 controls, 7 map directly to ISO/IEC 27003:2017 controls, representing 12% coverage. The remaining 50 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO 31000:2018 to ISO/IEC 27003:2017?

50 ISO 31000:2018 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO/IEC 27003:2017. The highest concentration of gaps is in Process – ISO 31000:2018 with 15 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 31000:2018 and ISO/IEC 27003:2017?

The domain with the highest gap count is Process – ISO 31000:2018 (15 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.