Cross-Framework Mapping

NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and ProductionvsIACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems

See exactly how NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls map to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

1
Controls Mapped
7
Gaps Found
12%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production maps to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems with 12% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls identifies 7 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Audit and Improvement.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 1 of 1 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Configuration Management(1 mappings)

AQAP2110-4Configuration Management and Change Control
IACS-UR-E27-Equipment-Hardening-SecureConfig-CommunicationsIACS UR E27 - Equipment Hardening + Secure Configuration + Secure Communications + Cryptography

Related Comparisons

Other NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production comparisons

Other IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems 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 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?

NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production has 8 controls across its framework, while IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems covers 19 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 1 overlapping controls (12% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Audit and Improvement, where 1 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls have no direct IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems equivalent.

How many controls map between NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?

Of 8 total NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls, 1 map directly to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems controls — representing 12% coverage. The remaining 7 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production to IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?

7 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls have no direct equivalent in IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems. The highest concentration of gaps is in Audit and Improvement with 1 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 NATO AQAP 2110 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 - Cyber Resilience of Ships and On-Board Systems?

The domain with the highest gap count is Audit and Improvement (1 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.