Cross-Framework Mapping

SOC 2vsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

See exactly how SOC 2 controls map to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

356
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
80%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

SOC 2 maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 80% coverage across 49 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 61 SOC 2 controls identifies 12 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 356 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

A - Availability(20 mappings)

SOC2-A1.1Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments4 targets
NIST-CSF-GV.OC-05Outcomes, capabilities, and services that the organization depends on are understood and communicated
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-10The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-03Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-04Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained
SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability14 targets
NIST-CSF-DE.CM-02The physical environment is monitored to find potentially adverse events
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-10The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-11Backups of data are created, protected, maintained, and tested
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-02The organization's technology assets are protected from environmental threats
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-03Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-04Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained
NIST-CSF-PR.PS-03Hardware is maintained, replaced, and removed commensurate with risk
NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed once initiated from the incident response process
NIST-CSF-RC.RP-03The integrity of backups and other restoration assets is verified before using them for restoration
NIST-CSF-RC.RP-04Critical mission functions and cybersecurity risk management are considered to establish post-incident operational norms
NIST-CSF-RC.RP-05The integrity of restored assets is verified, systems and services are restored, and normal operating status is confirmed
NIST-CSF-RC.RP-06The end of incident recovery is declared based on criteria, and incident-related documentation is completed
NIST-CSF-RS.MA-05The criteria for initiating incident recovery are applied
SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures2 targets
NIST-CSF-GV.OC-05Outcomes, capabilities, and services that the organization depends on are understood and communicated
NIST-CSF-ID.IM-01Improvements are identified from evaluations

+336 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
48.1%

51 of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for SOC 2. 55 are genuine gaps.

72.7%PR - Protect
35.7%GV - Govern
42.9%ID - Identify
54.5%DE - Detect
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 292 candidate mappings were examined and 190 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: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-02 Potentially adverse events are analyzed to better understand associated activities

Security events are evaluated to determine whether objectives could fail, which is event analysis.

Grounded in SOC2-CC7.3 Evaluates security events to determine incident status. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: NIST-CSF-DE.AE-03 Information is correlated from multiple sources

Information is correlated from multiple sources. Control from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 framework, domain: DE - Detect.

Every one of the 51 evidenced controls and 55 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 into SOC 2
52.5%

32 of 61 SOC 2 controls are evidenced by work you have already done for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 29 are genuine gaps.

81.8%CC - Common Criteria (Security)
100%A - Availability
100%C - Confidentiality
0%P - Privacy
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-19. 134 candidate mappings were examined and 89 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

Maintaining adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is capacity management and monitoring.

Grounded in NIST-CSF-PR.IR-04 Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained. 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 32 evidenced controls and 29 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

SOC 2 to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
$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 80% 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 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.

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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

SOC 2 has 61 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 49 overlapping controls (80% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in P - Privacy, where 9 SOC 2 controls have no direct NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 equivalent.

How many controls map between SOC 2 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

Of 61 total SOC 2 controls, 49 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, representing 80% coverage. The remaining 12 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

12 SOC 2 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in P - Privacy with 9 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 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

The domain with the highest gap count is P - Privacy (9 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.