TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsDORA

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

61
Controls Mapped
45
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 | 1,016 frameworks | 316K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 82 control mappings across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 316K+ mappings across 1,016 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 1,016 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.

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

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5106 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FedRAMP Moderate104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FedRAMP High104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs SOC 2104 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Australian Information Security Manual103 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ISO 27001:2022103 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ISO 27002:2022103 mappings

Other DORA comparisons

FedRAMP Moderate 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 mappingsCIS Controls v8 vs DORA25 mappingsISO 27002:2022 vs DORA25 mappingsISO 27001:2022 vs DORA25 mappingsSOC 2 vs DORA24 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

Cross-framework mappings across 1,016 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 1,016 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (316K+)
  • ✓ 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 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.