NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5vsSOC 2
See exactly how NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls map to SOC 2. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which SOC 2 controls you already evidence.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 maps to SOC 2 with 89% coverage across 286 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 300 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls identifies 34 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in SC - System and Communications Protection.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 300 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 882 mapped controls across 24 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.
AC - Access Control(20 mappings)
+862 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 SOC 2 crosswalk
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which SOC 2 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 SOC 2 lands at 80.3%, while SOC 2 into NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 lands at 22%, 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 SOC 2, the other asks the reverse.
49 of 61 SOC 2 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5. 12 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
SC-6 requires resource availability be protected through defined allocation and monitoring.
Grounded in NIST800-SC-6 Resource Availability. Protect the availability of resources by allocating [organization-defined] by [organization-defined]. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.
Demonstrates a commitment to integrity and ethical values
Every one of the 49 evidenced controls and 12 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.
66 of 300 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for SOC 2. 234 are genuine gaps.
A sample of what the report says
Users are registered and authorized, and access is removed when no longer appropriate.
Grounded in SOC2-CC6.2 Prior to granting access, registration and authorization processes are established. 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 66 evidenced controls and 234 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 89% 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 SOC 2 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 SOC 2 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 (309K+)
- ✓ 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 SOC 2?
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 has 300 controls across its framework, while SOC 2 covers 61 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 286 overlapping controls (89% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in SC - System and Communications Protection, where 13 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls have no direct SOC 2 equivalent.
How many controls map between NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and SOC 2?
Of 300 total NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls, 286 map directly to SOC 2 controls, representing 89% coverage. The remaining 34 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 SOC 2?
34 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls have no direct equivalent in SOC 2. The highest concentration of gaps is in SC - System and Communications Protection with 13 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 SOC 2?
The domain with the highest gap count is SC - System and Communications Protection (13 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.