NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsCMMC 2.0
See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to CMMC 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which CMMC 2.0 controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to CMMC 2.0 with 67% coverage across 71 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 35 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 208 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
DE - Detect(20 mappings)
+188 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
The NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to CMMC 2.0 crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which CMMC 2.0 controls your existing NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
54 of 110 CMMC 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 56 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Defined and managed access permissions and authorizations limit system access to authorized users.
Grounded in NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05 Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined in a policy, managed, enforced, and reviewed, and incorporate the principles of least privilege and separation of duties. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Lock the user session after a defined period of inactivity and conceal previously displayed content behind a pattern hiding display until the user reauthenticates.
Every one of the 54 evidenced controls and 56 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
44 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for CMMC 2.0. 62 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Correlating audit record review, analysis and reporting for investigation is adverse event analysis.
Grounded in AU.L2-3.3.5 Audit Correlation. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
Every one of the 44 evidenced controls and 62 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
- 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 67% in the header counts how many NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many CMMC 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons
Other CMMC 2.0 comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 686 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and CMMC 2.0?
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while CMMC 2.0 covers 110 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 71 overlapping controls (67% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 22 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct CMMC 2.0 equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and CMMC 2.0?
Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 71 map directly to CMMC 2.0 controls, representing 67% coverage. The remaining 35 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to CMMC 2.0?
35 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in CMMC 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 22 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and CMMC 2.0?
The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (22 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
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.