TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and ProductionvsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements

See exactly how NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls map to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

15
Controls Mapped
5
Gaps Found
35%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production maps to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements with 35% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 20 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls identifies 13 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Design and Development.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 20 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 15 of 15 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Chapter 4 - ISO 9001 Application(3 mappings)

AQAP-4.1Application of ISO 9001:20153 targets
→3.16System and Services Acquisition
→3.17Supply Chain Risk Management
→3.5Management of Suppliers

Performance and Improvement(2 mappings)

AQAP-5.10Internal Audit (NATO)
→3.1Food Safety and Quality Manual
AQAP-5.12Corrective Action
→3.1Food Safety and Quality Manual

Chapter 5 - Additional NATO Requirements(3 mappings)

AQAP-5.2Configuration Management2 targets
→FEDRAMP-CM-1Configuration Management Policy
→FEDRAMP-CM-2Baseline Configuration
AQAP-5.5Nonconformity Notification
→3.1Food Safety and Quality Manual

Supplier Control(7 mappings)

AQAP-5.8Subcontractor QMS3 targets
→3.16System and Services Acquisition
→3.17Supply Chain Risk Management
→3.5Management of Suppliers
AQAP-5.9Government Surveillance4 targets
→3.12Security Assessment and Monitoring
→3.16System and Services Acquisition
→3.17Supply Chain Risk Management
→3.5Management of Suppliers

Related Comparisons

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

NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs ILO Nursing Personnel Convention C149 (1977)8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6, Directive (EU) 2018/1673)8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs ISO 8000 — Data Quality8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs FATF Recommendation 16 — Virtual Asset Travel Rule8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs Privacy by Design (PbD) — Seven Foundational Principles8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs BS 65000:2014 — Guidance on Organizational Resilience8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence7 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR)7 mappings

Other NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements comparisons

UK Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsSouth Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsPAS 1192-5:2015 — Security-Minded Approach to BIM and Digital Built Environments vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsCanada ITSG-33 — IT Security Risk Management vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsNew Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsMARS-E — Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsNRC 10 CFR 73.54 — Nuclear Facility Cybersecurity vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements21 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements20 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 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 →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production has 20 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (35% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Design and Development, where 8 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls have no direct NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements equivalent.

How many controls map between NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

Of 20 total NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls, 7 map directly to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls — representing 35% coverage. The remaining 13 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 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

13 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements. The highest concentration of gaps is in Design and Development with 8 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 NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

The domain with the highest gap count is Design and Development (8 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

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.