TheArtOfService
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.

28
Controls Mapped
26
Gaps Found
17%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

SOC 2 maps to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 with 17% coverage across 9 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 54 SOC 2 controls identifies 45 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in CC - Common Criteria (Security).

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 54 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 28 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

A - Availability(15 mappings)

SOC2-A1.1Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments3 targets
→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 availability6 targets
→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
→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed
→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-06End-of-recovery is declared based on criteria and documentation
→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-05Criteria for initiating incident recovery are applied
SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures6 targets
→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
→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed
→NIST-CSF-RC.RP-06End-of-recovery is declared based on criteria and documentation
→NIST-CSF-RS.MA-05Criteria for initiating incident recovery are applied

CC - Common Criteria (Security)(5 mappings)

SOC2-CC4.2COSO principle 17: Evaluates and communicates deficiencies in a timely manner2 targets
→NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed
SOC2-CC6.1Logical and physical access security for information and assets
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-06Physical access to assets is managed, monitored, and enforced
SOC2-CC6.2Prior to granting access, registration and authorization processes are established
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed
SOC2-CC6.3Role-based access and least privilege are enforced
→NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed

+8 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 718 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

Other SOC 2 comparisons

SOC 2 vs AICPA SOC 331 mappingsSOC 2 vs C5 (Germany)22 mappingsSOC 2 vs SSAE 18 - Attestation Standards (SOC Reporting)13 mappingsSOC 2 vs Azure Security Benchmark11 mappingsSOC 2 vs ISO/IEC 27400:20229 mappingsSOC 2 vs FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)8 mappingsSOC 2 vs ISO/IEC 38500:2024 - Governance of IT8 mappingsSOC 2 vs CFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49)8 mappings

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

ISO 27001:2022 vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.082 mappingsBelgium CyberFundamentals vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.032 mappingsASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.032 mappingsASEAN Data Management Framework vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.025 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.022 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.022 mappingsAustralian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 mappingsAWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association) vs NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.019 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • ✓ Unlimited full-text search
  • ✓ Framework self-assessment
  • ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between SOC 2 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?

SOC 2 has 54 controls across its framework, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 106 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 9 overlapping controls (17% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in CC - Common Criteria (Security), where 25 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 54 total SOC 2 controls, 9 map directly to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls — representing 17% coverage. The remaining 45 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?

45 SOC 2 controls have no direct equivalent in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The highest concentration of gaps is in CC - Common Criteria (Security) with 25 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 CC - Common Criteria (Security) (25 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

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.