ISO/IEC 27010:2015vsNIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)
See exactly how ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls map to NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO/IEC 27010:2015 maps to NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) with 11% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls identifies 40 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 8 of 8 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
Cryptography(1 mappings)
Clause 9-10: Access Control and Cryptography(1 mappings)
Incidents(1 mappings)
Clause 14-16: System Development, Supplier Relations, and Incident Management(3 mappings)
Continuity(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 27010:2015 comparisons
Other NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 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 27010:2015 and NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)?
ISO/IEC 27010:2015 has 28 controls across its framework, while NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) covers 52 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (11% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance, where 6 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls have no direct NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO/IEC 27010:2015 and NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)?
Of 28 total ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls, 6 map directly to NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) controls — representing 11% coverage. The remaining 40 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 27010:2015 to NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)?
40 ISO/IEC 27010:2015 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance with 6 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 27010:2015 and NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 17-18 and Annexes: Continuity and Compliance (6 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.