Cross-Framework Mapping

ISO/IEC 27400:2022vsAS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence

See exactly how ISO/IEC 27400:2022 controls map to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

4
Controls Mapped
28
Gaps Found
6%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

ISO/IEC 27400:2022 maps to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence with 6% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 32 ISO/IEC 27400:2022 controls identifies 38 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 1-4: Introduction and Framework.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 32 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Device(2 mappings)

27400-6.2Device Identity and Authentication
9.1Risk communication and consultation
27400-6.4Default Configuration Security
AS9100D-8.1Operational Planning and Control

Clause 6: IoT Security Controls(2 mappings)

27400-6.2Device Identity and Authentication
9.1Risk communication and consultation
27400-6.4Default Configuration Security
AS9100D-8.1Operational Planning and Control

Related Comparisons

Other ISO/IEC 27400:2022 comparisons

Other AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 718 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/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/IEC 27400:2022 and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

ISO/IEC 27400:2022 has 32 controls across its framework, while AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence covers 42 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (6% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 1-4: Introduction and Framework, where 7 ISO/IEC 27400:2022 controls have no direct AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence equivalent.

How many controls map between ISO/IEC 27400:2022 and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

Of 32 total ISO/IEC 27400:2022 controls, 4 map directly to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls — representing 6% coverage. The remaining 38 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 27400:2022 to AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

38 ISO/IEC 27400:2022 controls have no direct equivalent in AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 1-4: Introduction and Framework with 7 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 27400:2022 and AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 1-4: Introduction and Framework (7 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.