Cross-Framework Mapping

SOC 2vsISO 22301:2019

See exactly how SOC 2 controls map to ISO 22301:2019. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

162
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
51%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which ISO 22301:2019 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

SOC 2 maps to ISO 22301:2019 with 51% coverage across 31 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 61 SOC 2 controls identifies 30 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in P - Privacy.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 61 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 309K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 162 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 309K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

A - Availability(19 mappings)

SOC2-A1.1Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments4 targets
iso-22301-2019::8.2.2Business impact analysis
iso-22301-2019::8.3.4Resource requirements
iso-22301-2019::8.3.5Implementation of solutions
iso-22301-2019::9.1Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability4 targets
iso-22301-2019::7.1Resources
iso-22301-2019::8.3.4Resource requirements
iso-22301-2019::8.3.5Implementation of solutions
iso-22301-2019::8.4.5Recovery
SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures11 targets
iso-22301-2019::7.5.1General
iso-22301-2019::8.2.1General
iso-22301-2019::8.2.2Business impact analysis
iso-22301-2019::8.3Business continuity strategies and solutions
iso-22301-2019::8.3.2Identification of strategies and solutions
iso-22301-2019::8.3.5Implementation of solutions
iso-22301-2019::8.4Business continuity plans and procedures
iso-22301-2019::8.4.1General
iso-22301-2019::8.4.4Business continuity plans
iso-22301-2019::8.4.5Recovery
iso-22301-2019::8.5Exercise programme

C - Confidentiality(1 mappings)

SOC2-C1.1Confidential information is identified and protected during receipt, processing, storage
iso-22301-2019::7.5.3Control of documented information

+142 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 ISO 22301:2019 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which ISO 22301:2019 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.

SOC 2 into ISO 22301:2019
35.1%

20 of 57 ISO 22301:2019 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for SOC 2. 37 are genuine gaps.

57.9%Operation, ISO 22301:2019
42.9%Planning, ISO 22301:2019
37.5%Performance evaluation, ISO 22301:2019
50%Improvement, ISO 22301:2019
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 138 candidate mappings were examined and 104 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.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: 10.1 Nonconformity and corrective action

Deficiencies evaluated and communicated to those responsible for corrective action is the corrective action loop of 10.1.

Grounded in SOC2-CC4.2 COSO principle 17: Evaluates and communicates deficiencies in a timely manner. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: 10.2 Continual improvement

Continually improve the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the BCMS using qualitative and quantitative measures, considering the results of analysis and evaluation and the outputs of management review to determine whether there are...

Every one of the 20 evidenced controls and 37 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

ISO 22301:2019 into SOC 2
27.9%

17 of 61 SOC 2 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for ISO 22301:2019. 44 are genuine gaps.

42.4%CC - Common Criteria (Security)
100%A - Availability
0%C - Confidentiality
0%P - Privacy
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 70 candidate mappings were examined and 35 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.

A sample of what the report says

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

Resource requirements determine the capacity needed to sustain prioritized activities.

Grounded in iso-22301-2019::8.3.4 Resource requirements. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: SOC2-C1.1 Confidential information is identified and protected during receipt, processing, storage

Identifies and maintains confidential information to meet the entity's objectives related to confidentiality

Every one of the 17 evidenced controls and 44 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

SOC 2 to ISO 22301:2019
$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 51% 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 ISO 22301:2019 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 (309K+)
  • 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 ISO 22301:2019?

SOC 2 has 61 controls across its framework, while ISO 22301:2019 covers 57 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 31 overlapping controls (51% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in P - Privacy, where 15 SOC 2 controls have no direct ISO 22301:2019 equivalent.

How many controls map between SOC 2 and ISO 22301:2019?

Of 61 total SOC 2 controls, 31 map directly to ISO 22301:2019 controls, representing 51% coverage. The remaining 30 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 ISO 22301:2019?

30 SOC 2 controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 22301:2019. The highest concentration of gaps is in P - Privacy with 15 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 ISO 22301:2019?

The domain with the highest gap count is P - Privacy (15 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.