TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsISO 27001:2022

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to ISO 27001:2022. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

202
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
80%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to ISO 27001:2022 with 80% coverage across 82 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 103 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 21 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in ID - Identify.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 103 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 820K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 202 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 820K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

DE - Detect(20 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities3 targets
→ISO27001-A.5.25Security event triage and escalation
→ISO27001-A.5.28Digital evidence preservation
→ISO27001-A.8.16Continuous activity and anomaly monitoring
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03Information is correlated from multiple sources2 targets
→ISO27001-A.5.25Security event triage and escalation
→ISO27001-A.8.16Continuous activity and anomaly monitoring
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04Estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
→ISO27001-A.5.25Security event triage and escalation
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-06Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff2 targets
→ISO27001-A.5.25Security event triage and escalation
→ISO27001-A.6.8Security event and weakness reporting
NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis2 targets
→ISO27001-A.5.7Cyber threat intelligence gathering
→ISO27001-A.8.16Continuous activity and anomaly monitoring
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-01Networks and network services are monitored to find potentially adverse events3 targets
→ISO27001-A.8.12Unauthorised data exfiltration prevention
→ISO27001-A.8.16Continuous activity and anomaly monitoring
→ISO27001-A.8.20Network infrastructure security
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-02The physical environment is monitored to find potentially adverse events3 targets
→ISO27001-A.7.8Equipment placement and environmental safeguards
→ISO27001-A.7.9Off-site asset protection
→ISO27001-A.8.16Continuous activity and anomaly monitoring
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-03Personnel activity and technology usage are monitored to find potentially adverse events2 targets
→ISO27001-A.8.12Unauthorised data exfiltration prevention
→ISO27001-A.8.16Continuous activity and anomaly monitoring
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-06External service provider activities are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→ISO27001-A.8.16Continuous activity and anomaly monitoring
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09Computing hardware and software are monitored to find potentially adverse events
→ISO27001-A.5.28Digital evidence preservation

+182 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 693 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-82 Rev 3 — Guide to OT Security22 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs TISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange21 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs CSA CCM v421 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs HKMA Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework (C-RAF)20 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs South Korea Cloud Security Assurance Program (CSAP)20 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) Cyber Risk Management Code of Conduct19 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FAA Cybersecurity Framework for Aviation19 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs FedRAMP Rev 519 mappings

Other ISO 27001:2022 comparisons

CSA CCM v4 vs ISO 27001:202288 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs ISO 27001:202278 mappingsSOC 2 vs ISO 27001:202272 mappingsPCI DSS v4.0 vs ISO 27001:202270 mappingsNAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) vs ISO 27001:202267 mappingsDORA vs ISO 27001:202257 mappingsGDPR vs ISO 27001:202242 mappingsTISAX — Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange vs ISO 27001:202226 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (820K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/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 ISO 27001:2022?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 103 controls across its framework, while ISO 27001:2022 covers 95 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 82 overlapping controls (80% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in ID - Identify, where 11 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct ISO 27001:2022 equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and ISO 27001:2022?

Of 103 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 82 map directly to ISO 27001:2022 controls — representing 80% coverage. The remaining 21 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 ISO 27001:2022?

21 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27001:2022. The highest concentration of gaps is in ID - Identify with 11 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 ISO 27001:2022?

The domain with the highest gap count is ID - Identify (11 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.