NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsPCI DSS 4.0
See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to PCI DSS 4.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which PCI DSS 4.0 controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to PCI DSS 4.0 with 82% coverage across 87 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 19 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 444 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
DE - Detect(20 mappings)
+424 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 PCI DSS 4.0 crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which PCI DSS 4.0 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 PCI DSS 4.0 lands at 29.3%, while PCI DSS 4.0 into NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 lands at 43.4%, 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 PCI DSS 4.0, the other asks the reverse.
73 of 249 PCI DSS 4.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 176 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Established configuration management practices are these network control configuration standards.
Grounded in NIST-CSF-PR.PS-01 Configuration management practices are established and applied. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
All security policies and operational procedures for Requirement 1 are documented, kept current, in use, and known to affected parties.
Every one of the 73 evidenced controls and 176 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
46 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for PCI DSS 4.0. 60 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
PCI reviews security event logs at least daily to understand what happened
Grounded in 10.4.1 Daily log review for critical systems. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
The estimated impact and scope of adverse events are understood
Every one of the 46 evidenced controls and 60 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 82% 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 PCI DSS 4.0 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 PCI DSS 4.0 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 (310K+)
- ✓ 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 PCI DSS 4.0?
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while PCI DSS 4.0 covers 249 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 87 overlapping controls (82% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 10 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct PCI DSS 4.0 equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and PCI DSS 4.0?
Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 87 map directly to PCI DSS 4.0 controls, representing 82% coverage. The remaining 19 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 PCI DSS 4.0?
19 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in PCI DSS 4.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 10 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 PCI DSS 4.0?
The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (10 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.