Cross-Framework Mapping

SOC 2vsCloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1

See exactly how SOC 2 controls map to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

173
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
100%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

SOC 2 maps to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 with 100% coverage across 61 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 61 SOC 2 controls identifies 0 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in P - Privacy.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 61 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 173 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

A - Availability(9 mappings)

SOC2-A1.1Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments
CCM-IVS-02Capacity and Resource Planning
SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability4 targets
CCM-BCR-08Backup
CCM-BCR-11Equipment Redundancy
CCM-DCS-13Environmental Systems
CCM-DCS-14Secure Utilities
SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures4 targets
CCM-BCR-04Business Continuity Planning
CCM-BCR-06Business Continuity Exercises
CCM-BCR-09Disaster Response Plan
CCM-BCR-10Response Plan Exercise

C - Confidentiality(5 mappings)

SOC2-C1.1Confidential information is identified and protected during receipt, processing, storage3 targets
CCM-DSP-03Data Inventory
CCM-DSP-04Data Classification
CCM-DSP-17Sensitive Data Protection
SOC2-C1.2Confidential information is disposed of securely2 targets
CCM-DSP-02Secure Disposal
CCM-DSP-16Data Retention and Deletion

CC - Common Criteria (Security)(6 mappings)

SOC2-CC1.1COSO principle 1: Demonstrates commitment to integrity and ethical values5 targets
CCM-GRC-01Governance Program Policy and Procedures
CCM-HRS-02Acceptable Use of Technology Policy and Procedures
CCM-HRS-07Employment Agreement Process
CCM-HRS-08Employment Agreement Content
CCM-HRS-13Compliance User Responsibility
SOC2-CC1.2COSO principle 2: Board exercises oversight responsibility
CCM-GRC-01Governance Program Policy and Procedures

+153 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 SOC 2 to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls your existing SOC 2 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. SOC 2 into Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 lands at 37.6%, while Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 into SOC 2 lands at 57.4%, 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 SOC 2 evidence buys you for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1, the other asks the reverse.

SOC 2 into Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1
37.6%

74 of 197 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for SOC 2. 123 are genuine gaps.

57.9%DSP - Data Security & Privacy Lifecycle Management
56.2%IAM - Identity & Access Management
72.7%BCR - Business Continuity Management & Operational Resilience
66.7%CCC - Change Control & Configuration Management
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 148 candidate mappings were examined and 17 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. This pair was additionally re-checked after CSA CCM v4.0.1 was rebuilt from the CAIQ v4.0.1 source on 2026-08-19: its mappings were originally judged when CCM carried no requirement text, a sample of 70 across the 21 CCM pairs found about 80 percent holding cleanly, and the two identified errors were corrected before release.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: CCM-A&A-01 Audit and Assurance Policy and Procedures

Ongoing and separate evaluations must be selected, developed and performed.

Grounded in SOC2-CC4.1 COSO principle 16: Selects and develops ongoing and separate evaluations. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: CCM-A&A-04 Requirements Compliance

Confirm during each audit that the organisation meets every standard, regulation, contract clause and statutory obligation inside the audit scope, and record the outcome for each one.

Every one of the 74 evidenced controls and 123 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 into SOC 2
57.4%

35 of 61 SOC 2 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 26 are genuine gaps.

63.6%CC - Common Criteria (Security)
50%P - Privacy
100%A - Availability
100%C - Confidentiality
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 121 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. This pair was additionally re-checked after CSA CCM v4.0.1 was rebuilt from the CAIQ v4.0.1 source on 2026-08-19: its mappings were originally judged when CCM carried no requirement text, a sample of 70 across the 21 CCM pairs found about 80 percent holding cleanly, and the two identified errors were corrected before release.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: SOC2-A1.1 Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments

Capacity and resource planning is the same availability capacity requirement.

Grounded in CCM-IVS-02 Capacity and Resource Planning. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: SOC2-CC1.1 COSO principle 1: Demonstrates commitment to integrity and ethical values

Demonstrates a commitment to integrity and ethical values

Every one of the 35 evidenced controls and 26 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

SOC 2 to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1
$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 100% in the header counts how many SOC 2 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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.

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 (310K+)
  • 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 →

What are the key differences between SOC 2 and Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?

SOC 2 has 61 controls across its framework, while Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 197 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 61 overlapping controls (100% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in P - Privacy, where 0 SOC 2 controls have no direct Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 equivalent.

How many controls map between SOC 2 and Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?

Of 61 total SOC 2 controls, 61 map directly to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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 SOC 2 to Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?

0 SOC 2 controls have no direct equivalent in Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. The highest concentration of gaps is in P - Privacy 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 SOC 2 and Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1?

The domain with the highest gap count is P - Privacy (0 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

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.