NIST SP 800-218vsISO 27001:2022
See exactly how NIST SP 800-218 controls map to ISO 27001:2022. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which ISO 27001:2022 controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
NIST SP 800-218 maps to ISO 27001:2022 with 100% coverage across 42 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 42 NIST SP 800-218 controls identifies 0 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Respond to Vulnerabilities.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 42 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 77 mapped controls across 8 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
Prepare the Organization(18 mappings)
NIST SP 800-218: Information Security Policies(2 mappings)
+57 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 SP 800-218 to ISO 27001:2022 crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO 27001:2022 controls your existing NIST SP 800-218 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 SP 800-218 into ISO 27001:2022 lands at 8.6%, while ISO 27001:2022 into NIST SP 800-218 lands at 50%, 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 SP 800-218 evidence buys you for ISO 27001:2022, the other asks the reverse.
8 of 93 ISO 27001:2022 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST SP 800-218. 85 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Tracking component origin and verifying provenance manages risk along the software supply chain.
Grounded in SP800-218-PW.4.1 Reuse Trusted Software Components. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Write, approve and publish a top-level security policy plus topic-specific policies, and review them on a set cadence and after major change.
Every one of the 8 evidenced controls and 85 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
21 of 42 NIST SP 800-218 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 27001:2022. 21 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Identifying, specifying and approving application security requirements is the same task.
Grounded in iso-27001-2022::8.26 Application security requirements. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Configure development tools, source control, build systems, and artifact repositories to enforce the security requirements. Automate enforcement so that compliance is the default behavior rather than a manual checklist.
Every one of the 21 evidenced controls and 21 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 100% in the header counts how many NIST SP 800-218 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many ISO 27001:2022 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 SP 800-218 comparisons
Other ISO 27001:2022 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 SP 800-218 and ISO 27001:2022?
NIST SP 800-218 has 42 controls across its framework, while ISO 27001:2022 covers 93 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 42 overlapping controls (100% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Respond to Vulnerabilities, where 0 NIST SP 800-218 controls have no direct ISO 27001:2022 equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST SP 800-218 and ISO 27001:2022?
Of 42 total NIST SP 800-218 controls, 42 map directly to ISO 27001:2022 controls, representing 100% coverage. The remaining 0 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST SP 800-218 to ISO 27001:2022?
0 NIST SP 800-218 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 27001:2022. The highest concentration of gaps is in Respond to Vulnerabilities with 0 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 SP 800-218 and ISO 27001:2022?
The domain with the highest gap count is Respond to Vulnerabilities (0 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.