TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIS2 DirectivevsDORA

See exactly how NIS2 Directive controls map to DORA. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

50
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
86%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which DORA controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIS2 Directive maps to DORA with 86% coverage across 24 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 NIS2 Directive controls identifies 42 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in NIS2 Chapter IX: Final Provisions.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 50 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

NIS2 Chapter IV: Governance (Article 20)(3 mappings)

nis2-directive::Art.20.1Management body approves the cybersecurity risk-management measures and oversees their implementation
→DORA-Art.5Governance and organisation
nis2-directive::Art.20.2Train the management body, and offer equivalent training to staff on a regular basis2 targets
→DORA-Art.13Learning and evolving
→DORA-Art.5Governance and organisation

NIS2 Chapter IV: Cybersecurity Risk-Management Measures (Article 21)(17 mappings)

nis2-directive::Art.21.1Take proportionate all-hazards measures calibrated to the entity's own risk exposure2 targets
→DORA-Art.16Simplified ICT risk management framework
→DORA-Art.6ICT risk management framework
nis2-directive::Art.21.2.aPolicies on risk analysis and on information system security2 targets
→DORA-Art.6ICT risk management framework
→DORA-Art.8Identification
nis2-directive::Art.21.2.bIncident handling5 targets
→DORA-Art.10Detection
→DORA-Art.13Learning and evolving
→DORA-Art.17ICT-related incident management process
→DORA-Art.18Classification of ICT-related incidents and cyber threats
→DORA-Art.23Operational or security payment-related incidents
nis2-directive::Art.21.2.cBusiness continuity, backup management, disaster recovery and crisis management3 targets
→DORA-Art.11Response and recovery
→DORA-Art.12Backup policies and procedures, restoration and recovery
→DORA-Art.14Communication
nis2-directive::Art.21.2.dSupply chain security, covering the relationship with each direct supplier and service provider3 targets
→DORA-Art.28ICT third-party risk: general principles
→DORA-Art.29Preliminary assessment of ICT concentration risk at entity level
→DORA-Art.30Key contractual provisions
nis2-directive::Art.21.2.eSecurity in acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling and disclosure2 targets
→DORA-Art.13Learning and evolving
→DORA-Art.14Communication

+30 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 686 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

The NIS2 Directive to DORA crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which DORA 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.

NIS2 Directive into DORA
65.4%

17 of 26 DORA controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIS2 Directive. 9 are genuine gaps.

81.8%DORA Chapter II: ICT Risk Management
75%DORA Chapter III: ICT-Related Incident Management
75%DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management
25%DORA Chapter IV: Digital Operational Resilience Testing
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-20. 36 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: DORA-Art.10 Detection

Incident handling's detect and triage capability with severity levels is DORA's detection requirement.

Grounded in nis2-directive::Art.21.2.b Incident handling. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: DORA-Art.16 Simplified ICT risk management framework

Specified smaller and non-interconnected financial entities are subject to a simplified ICT risk management framework with proportionate requirements (sound systems, monitoring, business continuity, incident handling and testing).

Every one of the 17 evidenced controls and 9 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

DORA into NIS2 Directive
60.7%

17 of 28 NIS2 Directive controls are evidenced by work you have already done for DORA. 11 are genuine gaps.

69.2%NIS2 Chapter IV: Cybersecurity Risk-Management Measures (Article 21)
83.3%NIS2 Chapter IV: Incident Reporting (Article 23)
100%NIS2 Chapter IV: Governance (Article 20)
100%NIS2 Chapter VII: Supervision and Enforcement
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-20. 39 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: Art.20.1 Management body approves the cybersecurity risk-management measures and oversees their...

Management body ownership, approval and oversight of the ICT risk framework is NIS2's board approval duty.

Grounded in DORA-Art.5 Governance and organisation. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: Art.21.1 Take proportionate all-hazards measures calibrated to the entity's own risk exposure

Above the enumerated list in Article 21(2) sits a duty to size the whole programme correctly. Measures must be technical, operational and organisational together, must protect both the network and information systems and the physical...

Every one of the 17 evidenced controls and 11 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIS2 Directive to DORA
$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 86% 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 DORA 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.026 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs C5 (Germany)26 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs ISO 27002:202226 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs ISO 27001:202226 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs FedRAMP High20 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs FedRAMP Moderate20 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE20 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH20 mappings

Other DORA comparisons

FedRAMP Moderate vs DORA26 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH vs DORA26 mappingsFedRAMP High vs DORA26 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs DORA26 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs DORA26 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE vs DORA25 mappingsCIS Controls v8 vs DORA25 mappingsISO 27002:2022 vs DORA25 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 686 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
  • ✓ 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 DORA?

NIS2 Directive has 28 controls across its framework, while DORA covers 26 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 24 overlapping controls (86% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in NIS2 Chapter IX: Final Provisions, where 7 NIS2 Directive controls have no direct DORA equivalent.

How many controls map between NIS2 Directive and DORA?

Of 28 total NIS2 Directive controls, 24 map directly to DORA controls, representing 86% coverage. The remaining 42 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 DORA?

42 NIS2 Directive controls have no direct equivalent in DORA. 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 DORA?

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.