TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIS2 DirectivevsC5 (Germany)

See exactly how NIS2 Directive controls map to C5 (Germany). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

109
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
93%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which C5 (Germany) controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIS2 Directive maps to C5 (Germany) with 93% coverage across 26 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 NIS2 Directive controls identifies 40 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in NIS2 Chapter IX: Final Provisions.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 878 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 109 mapped controls across 8 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 878 frameworks.

NIS2 Chapter IV: Governance (Article 20)(5 mappings)

nis2-directive::Art.20.1Management body approves the cybersecurity risk-management measures and oversees their implementation3 targets
→C5-BCM-01Top management responsibility
→C5-COM-04Information on information security performance and management assessment of the ISMS
→C5-OIS-02Information Security Policy
nis2-directive::Art.20.2Train the management body, and offer equivalent training to staff on a regular basis2 targets
→C5-DEV-04Safety training and awareness programme regarding continuous software delivery and associated systems, components or tools
→C5-HR-03Security training and awareness programme

NIS2 Chapter IV: Cybersecurity Risk-Management Measures (Article 21)(15 mappings)

nis2-directive::Art.21.1Take proportionate all-hazards measures calibrated to the entity's own risk exposure4 targets
→C5-OIS-01Information Security Management System (ISMS)
→C5-OIS-06Risk Management Policy
→C5-OIS-07Application of the Risk Management Policy
→C5-PS-01Physical Security and Environmental Control Requirements
nis2-directive::Art.21.2.aPolicies on risk analysis and on information system security4 targets
→C5-OIS-02Information Security Policy
→C5-OIS-06Risk Management Policy
→C5-SP-01Documentation, communication and provision of policies and instructions
→C5-SP-03Exceptions from Existing Policies and Instructions
nis2-directive::Art.21.2.bIncident handling5 targets
→C5-OPS-13Logging and Monitoring - Identification of Events
→C5-SIM-01Policy for security incident management
→C5-SIM-02Processing of security incidents
→C5-SIM-04Duty of the users to report security incidents to a central body
→C5-SIM-05Evaluation and learning process
nis2-directive::Art.21.2.cBusiness continuity, backup management, disaster recovery and crisis management2 targets
→C5-BCM-02Business impact analysis policies and instructions
→C5-BCM-03Planning business continuity

+89 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 878 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

The NIS2 Directive to C5 (Germany) crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which C5 (Germany) controls your existing NIS2 Directive work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

Coverage does not run both ways. NIS2 Directive into C5 (Germany) lands at 26.4%, while C5 (Germany) into NIS2 Directive lands at 53.6%, on the same two control sets. That is not a rounding difference. It is the whole reason these are two separate reports: one asks what your NIS2 Directive evidence buys you for C5 (Germany), the other asks the reverse.

NIS2 Directive into C5 (Germany)
26.4%

32 of 121 C5 (Germany) controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIS2 Directive. 89 are genuine gaps.

C5 (Germany) into NIS2 Directive
53.6%

15 of 28 NIS2 Directive controls are evidenced by work you have already done for C5 (Germany). 13 are genuine gaps.

NIS2 Directive to C5 (Germany)
$299
per framework pair, one time
  • Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
  • Every gap, with what it requires
  • Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number

Why this page shows two different percentages. The 93% in the header counts how many NIS2 Directive controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many C5 (Germany) controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.

A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.

Related Comparisons

Other NIS2 Directive comparisons

NIS2 Directive vs ISO 27002:202227 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.026 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs ISO 27001:202226 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs DORA24 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs FedRAMP High20 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs FedRAMP Moderate20 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 520 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs APRA CPS 23420 mappings

Other C5 (Germany) comparisons

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs C5 (Germany)121 mappingsSOC 2 vs C5 (Germany)119 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs C5 (Germany)117 mappingsISO 27002:2022 vs C5 (Germany)116 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs C5 (Germany)116 mappingsFedRAMP High vs C5 (Germany)115 mappingsFedRAMP Moderate vs C5 (Germany)115 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs C5 (Germany)111 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

Cross-framework mappings across 878 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 878 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$149/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 NIS2 Directive and C5 (Germany)?

NIS2 Directive has 28 controls across its framework, while C5 (Germany) covers 121 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 26 overlapping controls (93% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in NIS2 Chapter IX: Final Provisions, where 7 NIS2 Directive controls have no direct C5 (Germany) equivalent.

How many controls map between NIS2 Directive and C5 (Germany)?

Of 28 total NIS2 Directive controls, 26 map directly to C5 (Germany) controls, representing 93% 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 NIS2 Directive to C5 (Germany)?

40 NIS2 Directive controls have no direct equivalent in C5 (Germany). The highest concentration of gaps is in NIS2 Chapter IX: Final Provisions 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 NIS2 Directive and C5 (Germany)?

The domain with the highest gap count is NIS2 Chapter IX: Final Provisions (7 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.