ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration LaboratoriesvsSQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food
See exactly how ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories controls map to SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories maps to SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food with 15% coverage across 10 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 65 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories controls identifies 55 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 7: Process Requirements.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 65 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 16 of 16 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Clause 6: Resource Requirements(11 mappings)
Clause 8: Management System Requirements(3 mappings)
Clause 5: Structural Requirements(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories comparisons
Other SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 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/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories and SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food?
ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories has 65 controls across its framework, while SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food covers 30 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 10 overlapping controls (15% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 7: Process Requirements, where 19 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories controls have no direct SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories and SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food?
Of 65 total ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories controls, 10 map directly to SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food controls — representing 15% coverage. The remaining 55 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories to SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food?
55 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories controls have no direct equivalent in SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food. The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 7: Process Requirements with 19 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/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories and SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food?
The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 7: Process Requirements (19 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.