ISO/IEC 30111:2019vsMARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges
See exactly how ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls map to MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
ISO/IEC 30111:2019 maps to MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges with 36% coverage across 8 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 22 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls identifies 14 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 22 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 16 of 16 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Clause 1-4: Introduction(8 mappings)
Clause 5: Vulnerability Handling Policy and Organization(4 mappings)
Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process(1 mappings)
Clause 7: Vendor Process Management(1 mappings)
Clause 8: Post-Release Activities(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 30111:2019 comparisons
Other MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges 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 30111:2019 and MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges?
ISO/IEC 30111:2019 has 22 controls across its framework, while MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges covers 21 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 8 overlapping controls (36% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process, where 4 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls have no direct MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges equivalent.
How many controls map between ISO/IEC 30111:2019 and MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges?
Of 22 total ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls, 8 map directly to MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges controls — representing 36% coverage. The remaining 14 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping ISO/IEC 30111:2019 to MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges?
14 ISO/IEC 30111:2019 controls have no direct equivalent in MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges. The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process with 4 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 30111:2019 and MARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges?
The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 6: Vulnerability Handling Process (4 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.