TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIS2 DirectivevsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

See exactly how NIS2 Directive controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

115
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
93%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIS2 Directive maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 | 908 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 115 mapped controls across 8 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 908 frameworks.

NIS2 Chapter IV: Governance (Article 20)(8 mappings)

nis2-directive::Art.20.1Management body approves the cybersecurity risk-management measures and oversees their implementation5 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.OV-01Cybersecurity risk management strategy outcomes are reviewed to inform and adjust strategy and direction
→NIST-CSF-GV.OV-03Organizational cybersecurity risk management performance is evaluated and reviewed for adjustments needed
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-03Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes
→NIST-CSF-GV.RR-01Organizational leadership is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity risk and fosters a culture that is risk-aware, ethical, and continually improving
→NIST-CSF-GV.RR-03Adequate resources are allocated commensurate with the cybersecurity risk strategy, roles, responsibilities, and policies
nis2-directive::Art.20.2Train the management body, and offer equivalent training to staff on a regular basis3 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.RR-04Cybersecurity is included in human resources practices
→NIST-CSF-PR.AT-01Personnel are provided with awareness and training so that they possess the knowledge and skills to perform general tasks with cybersecurity risks in mind
→NIST-CSF-PR.AT-02Individuals in specialized roles are provided with awareness and training so that they possess the knowledge and skills to perform relevant tasks with cybersecurity risks in mind

NIS2 Chapter IV: Cybersecurity Risk-Management Measures (Article 21)(12 mappings)

nis2-directive::Art.21.1Take proportionate all-hazards measures calibrated to the entity's own risk exposure8 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.CM-02The physical environment is monitored to find potentially adverse events
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01The organizational mission is understood and informs cybersecurity risk management
→NIST-CSF-GV.OC-05Outcomes, capabilities, and services that the organization depends on are understood and communicated
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-01Risk management objectives are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-02Risk appetite and risk tolerance statements are established, communicated, and maintained
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-04Potential impacts and likelihoods of threats exploiting vulnerabilities are identified and recorded
→NIST-CSF-ID.RA-05Threats, vulnerabilities, likelihoods, and impacts are used to understand inherent risk and inform risk response prioritization
→NIST-CSF-PR.IR-02The organization's technology assets are protected from environmental threats
nis2-directive::Art.21.2.aPolicies on risk analysis and on information system security4 targets
→NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is established based on organizational context, cybersecurity strategy, and priorities and is communicated and enforced
→NIST-CSF-GV.PO-02Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is reviewed, updated, communicated, and enforced to reflect changes in requirements, threats, technology, and organizational mission
→NIST-CSF-GV.RM-06A standardized method for calculating, documenting, categorizing, and prioritizing cybersecurity risks is established and communicated
→NIST-CSF-GV.RR-02Roles, responsibilities, and authorities related to cybersecurity risk management are established, communicated, understood, and enforced

+95 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 908 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

The NIS2 Directive to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 lands at 34%, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into NIS2 Directive lands at 50%, 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, the other asks the reverse.

NIS2 Directive into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
34%

36 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIS2 Directive. 70 are genuine gaps.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into NIS2 Directive
50%

14 of 28 NIS2 Directive controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 14 are genuine gaps.

NIS2 Directive to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
$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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 C5 (Germany)26 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0106 mappingsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsFedRAMP Moderate vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsFedRAMP High vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsSOC 2 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0104 mappingsAustralian Information Security Manual vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0103 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0103 mappingsISO 27002:2022 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0103 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

Cross-framework mappings across 908 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 908 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

NIS2 Directive has 28 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between NIS2 Directive and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 28 total NIS2 Directive controls, 26 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

40 NIS2 Directive controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

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.