Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsDORA

Name: NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to DORA Control Mapping Dataset
Creator: TheArtOfService

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

Controls Mapped

Gaps Found

58%

Coverage

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

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to DORA with 58% coverage across 61 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 45 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in PR - Protect.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 82 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

DE - Detect(8 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

→DORA-Art.10Detection

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood

→DORA-Art.18Classification of ICT-related incidents and cyber threats

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and other contextual information are integrated into the analysis2 targets

→DORA-Art.18Classification of ICT-related incidents and cyber threats

→DORA-Art.45Information-sharing arrangements on cyber threat information and intelligence

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet the defined incident criteria

→DORA-Art.10Detection

NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events2 targets

→DORA-Art.10Detection

→DORA-Art.16Simplified ICT risk management framework

NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09Computing hardware and software, runtime environments, and their data are monitored to find potentially adverse events

→DORA-Art.10Detection

GV - Govern(12 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements regarding cybersecurity - including privacy and civil liberties obligations - are understood and managed3 targets

→DORA-Art.19Reporting of major ICT-related incidents

→DORA-Art.50Administrative penalties and remedial measures

→DORA-Art.56Data protection

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-05Outcomes, capabilities, and services that the organization depends on are understood and communicated

→DORA-Art.8Identification

NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is established based on organizational context, cybersecurity strategy, and priorities and is communicated and enforced

→DORA-Art.6ICT risk management framework

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

→DORA-Art.6ICT risk management framework

NIST-CSF-GV.RM-01Risk management objectives are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders2 targets

→DORA-Art.5Governance and organisation

→DORA-Art.6ICT risk management framework

NIST-CSF-GV.RM-03Cybersecurity risk management activities and outcomes are included in enterprise risk management processes

→DORA-Art.6ICT risk management framework

NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04Strategic direction that describes appropriate risk response options is established and communicated

→DORA-Art.5Governance and organisation

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

→DORA-Art.5Governance and organisation

NIST-CSF-GV.RR-02Roles, responsibilities, and authorities related to cybersecurity risk management are established, communicated, understood, and enforced

→DORA-Art.5Governance and organisation

+62 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 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.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into DORA

50%

13 of 26 DORA controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 13 are genuine gaps.

81.8%DORA Chapter II: ICT Risk Management

25%DORA Chapter III: ICT-Related Incident Management

25%DORA Chapter IV: Digital Operational Resilience Testing

25%DORA Chapter V: ICT Third-Party Risk Management

Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-20. 76 candidate mappings were examined and 2 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

Networks and network services monitored to find adverse events covers network performance detection.

Grounded in NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01 Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events. 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 13 evidenced controls and 13 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

DORA into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

Not published yet

This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.

If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 58% 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 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

Other DORA comparisons

FedRAMP Moderate vs DORA26 mappings NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH vs DORA26 mappings FedRAMP High vs DORA26 mappings NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs DORA26 mappings Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 vs DORA26 mappings NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE vs DORA25 mappings CIS Controls v8 vs DORA25 mappings ISO 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 800-53 ISO 27001 vs NIST CSF CMMC vs NIST 800-53 FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53 NIST CSF vs SOC 2 HIPAA vs NIST 800-53 ISO 27001 vs SOC 2 ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and DORA?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while DORA covers 26 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 61 overlapping controls (58% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in PR - Protect, where 12 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct DORA equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and DORA?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 61 map directly to DORA controls, representing 58% coverage. The remaining 45 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 DORA?

45 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in DORA. The highest concentration of gaps is in PR - Protect with 12 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 DORA?

The domain with the highest gap count is PR - Protect (12 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.