Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsNIS2 Directive

Name: NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to NIS2 Directive Control Mapping Dataset
Creator: TheArtOfService

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to NIS2 Directive. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

115

Controls Mapped

Gaps Found

95%

Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which NIS2 Directive controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to NIS2 Directive with 95% coverage across 101 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 5 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 115 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

DE - Detect(10 mappings)

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

→nis2-directive::Art.21.2.bIncident handling

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

→nis2-directive::Art.23.4.bSubmit an incident notification within 72 hours, with an initial assessment and indicators of compromise

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-06Information on adverse events is provided to authorized staff

→nis2-directive::Art.21.2.bIncident handling

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-07Cyber threat intelligence and contextual information are integrated into analysis

→nis2-directive::Art.23.2Tell affected service recipients about significant cyber threats and the remedies open to them

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria2 targets

→nis2-directive::Art.21.2.bIncident handling

→nis2-directive::Art.23.1Notify significant incidents to the CSIRT or competent authority, and warn affected service recipients

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

→nis2-directive::Art.21.2.bIncident handling

NIST-CSF-DE.CM-02The physical environment is monitored to find potentially adverse events

→nis2-directive::Art.21.1Take proportionate all-hazards measures calibrated to the entity's own risk exposure

NIST-CSF-DE.CM-06External service provider activities are monitored to find potentially adverse events

→nis2-directive::Art.21.2.dSupply chain security, covering the relationship with each direct supplier and service provider

NIST-CSF-DE.CM-09Computing hardware and software are monitored to find potentially adverse events

→nis2-directive::Art.21.2.gBasic cyber hygiene practices and cybersecurity training

GV - Govern(10 mappings)

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01Organizational context for cybersecurity risk management is understood2 targets

→nis2-directive::Art.21.1Take proportionate all-hazards measures calibrated to the entity's own risk exposure

→nis2-directive::Art.26Establish which Member State has jurisdiction, and designate a Union representative if not established in the Union

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements are understood4 targets

→nis2-directive::Art.24Use certified ICT products, services and processes where the Member State requires it

→nis2-directive::Art.26Establish which Member State has jurisdiction, and designate a Union representative if not established in the Union

→nis2-directive::Art.3.4Submit and maintain entity registration information with the competent authority

→nis2-directive::Art.32Cooperate with supervision: inspections, security audits, scans and requests for information and evidence

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-04Critical objectives, capabilities, and services are understood

→nis2-directive::Art.21.2.cBusiness continuity, backup management, disaster recovery and crisis management

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-05Outcomes and dependencies of critical services are understood

→nis2-directive::Art.21.1Take proportionate all-hazards measures calibrated to the entity's own risk exposure

NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01Cybersecurity risk management policy is established based on context and strategy

→nis2-directive::Art.21.2.aPolicies on risk analysis and on information system security

NIST-CSF-GV.PO-02Policy is reviewed, updated, communicated, and enforced

→nis2-directive::Art.21.2.aPolicies on risk analysis and on information system security

+95 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 NIS2 Directive crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIS2 Directive 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 NIS2 Directive lands at 50%, while NIS2 Directive into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 lands at 37.7%, 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 NIS2 Directive, the other asks the reverse.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into NIS2 Directive

50%

14 of 28 NIS2 Directive controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 14 are genuine gaps.

84.6%NIS2 Chapter IV: Cybersecurity Risk-Management Measures (Article 21)

100%NIS2 Chapter IV: Governance (Article 20)

16.7%NIS2 Chapter IV: Incident Reporting (Article 23)

0%NIS2 Chapter IV: Supply Chain Assessment, Certification and Standardisation (Articles 22, 24, 25)

Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-20. 76 candidate mappings were examined and 0 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: Art.20.1 Management body approves the cybersecurity risk-management measures and oversees their...

Risk management performance is evaluated and reviewed for adjustments needed.

Grounded in NIST-CSF-GV.OV-03 Risk management performance is evaluated. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: Art.21.1 Take proportionate all-hazards measures calibrated to the entity's own risk exposure

Above the enumerated list in Article 21(2) sits a duty to size the whole programme correctly. Measures must be technical, operational and organisational together, must protect both the network and information systems and the physical...

Every one of the 14 evidenced controls and 14 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIS2 Directive into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

37.7%

40 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIS2 Directive. 66 are genuine gaps.

59.1%PR - Protect

32.1%GV - Govern

42.9%ID - Identify

38.5%RS - Respond

Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-20. 104 candidate mappings were examined and 0 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: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-04 Estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood

Requires an initial assessment of severity and impact within 72 hours of awareness.

Grounded in nis2-directive::Art.23.4.b Submit an incident notification within 72 hours, with an initial assessment and indicators of compromise. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

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

Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: DE - Detect.

Every one of the 40 evidenced controls and 66 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to NIS2 Directive

$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 95% 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 NIS2 Directive 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 NIS2 Directive comparisons

C5 (Germany) vs NIS2 Directive26 mappings ISO 27002:2022 vs NIS2 Directive26 mappings ISO 27001:2022 vs NIS2 Directive26 mappings DORA vs NIS2 Directive24 mappings FedRAMP High vs NIS2 Directive20 mappings FedRAMP Moderate vs NIS2 Directive20 mappings NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 MODERATE vs NIS2 Directive20 mappings NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5.1 HIGH vs NIS2 Directive20 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 (309K+)
✓ 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 NIS2 Directive?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while NIS2 Directive covers 28 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 101 overlapping controls (95% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 2 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct NIS2 Directive equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and NIS2 Directive?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 101 map directly to NIS2 Directive controls, representing 95% coverage. The remaining 5 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 NIS2 Directive?

5 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in NIS2 Directive. 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 NIS2 Directive?

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

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.