NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5vsCMMC 2.0
See exactly how NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls map to CMMC 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which CMMC 2.0 controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 maps to CMMC 2.0 with 47% coverage across 151 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 300 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls identifies 169 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in SC - System and Communications Protection.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 300 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 353 mapped controls across 24 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
AC - Access Control(20 mappings)
+333 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 800-53 Rev 5 to CMMC 2.0 crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which CMMC 2.0 controls your existing NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 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 800-53 Rev 5 into CMMC 2.0 lands at 85.5%, while CMMC 2.0 into NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 lands at 28.7%, 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 SP 800-53 Rev 5 evidence buys you for CMMC 2.0, the other asks the reverse.
94 of 110 CMMC 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5. 16 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
AC-2 governs which users and devices hold accounts and therefore system access.
Grounded in NIST800-AC-2 Account management. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Monitor and control remote access sessions so each remote connection is authorized, visible to the organization and subject to enforcement.
Every one of the 94 evidenced controls and 16 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
86 of 300 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for CMMC 2.0. 214 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Session lock with pattern hiding displays after inactivity is device lock.
Grounded in AC.L2-3.1.10 Session Lock. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Requires an access control policy and supporting procedures to be written, approved, issued to the personnel who must apply them, owned by a named official, and reviewed and reissued on a defined frequency and after defined trigger events,...
Every one of the 86 evidenced controls and 214 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 47% in the header counts how many NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many CMMC 2.0 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 SP 800-53 Rev 5 comparisons
Other CMMC 2.0 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 SP 800-53 Rev 5 and CMMC 2.0?
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 has 300 controls across its framework, while CMMC 2.0 covers 110 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 151 overlapping controls (47% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in SC - System and Communications Protection, where 28 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls have no direct CMMC 2.0 equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and CMMC 2.0?
Of 300 total NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls, 151 map directly to CMMC 2.0 controls, representing 47% coverage. The remaining 169 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 to CMMC 2.0?
169 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls have no direct equivalent in CMMC 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in SC - System and Communications Protection with 28 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 800-53 Rev 5 and CMMC 2.0?
The domain with the highest gap count is SC - System and Communications Protection (28 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.