NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsFedRAMP Moderate
See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to FedRAMP Moderate. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which FedRAMP Moderate controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to FedRAMP Moderate with 98% coverage across 104 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 2 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 552 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
DE - Detect(20 mappings)
+532 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 FedRAMP Moderate crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which FedRAMP Moderate 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.
Coverage does not run both ways. NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into FedRAMP Moderate lands at 21.4%, while FedRAMP Moderate into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 lands at 67%, 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 evidence buys you for FedRAMP Moderate, the other asks the reverse.
69 of 323 FedRAMP Moderate controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 254 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
AC-2 manages the accounts through which those identities gain access.
Grounded in NIST-CSF-PR.AA-01 Identities and credentials for authorized users, services, and hardware are managed. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Develop and disseminate access control policy and procedures; review at least annually (FedRAMP parameter); update following defined events.
Every one of the 69 evidenced controls and 254 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
71 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for FedRAMP Moderate. 35 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
System monitoring analyses detected events to understand the associated activity.
Grounded in SI-4 System Monitoring. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: DE - Detect.
Every one of the 71 evidenced controls and 35 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 98% 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 FedRAMP Moderate 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 FedRAMP Moderate 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 (309K+)
- ✓ 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 FedRAMP Moderate?
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while FedRAMP Moderate covers 323 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 104 overlapping controls (98% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 2 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct FedRAMP Moderate equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and FedRAMP Moderate?
Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 104 map directly to FedRAMP Moderate controls, representing 98% coverage. The remaining 2 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 FedRAMP Moderate?
2 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in FedRAMP Moderate. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 2 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 FedRAMP Moderate?
The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (2 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.