C5 (Germany) covers 54.1% of SOC 2
33 of the 61 controls in SOC 2 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 28 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.
What this leaves you to do
SOC 2 has 61 controls. Holding C5 (Germany) already evidences 33 of them, so the work in front of you is 28 controls, not 61, which is 46% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 33 controls of SOC 2 you do not have to implement again, which is $9.06 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 33 already evidenced are | 132 hours | 264 hours | 528 hours |
| and the 28 remaining are | 112 hours | 224 hours | 448 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of SOC 2 your C5 (Germany) evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.
110 candidate mappings were examined and 3 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. 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.
Where the gaps are
Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.
Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.
Claims that held
A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.
C5 gives the customer the means to monitor and steer the system resources allocated to it.
C5 monitors resource consumption and service provisioning against the contractual agreements and agreed service levels.
C5 forecasts personnel and IT capacity demand, identifies usage trends and prevents overload so customer commitments hold.
C5 fixes backup scope, frequency and retention against recovery targets, mandates encryption of backups and recovery testing.
C5 requires N plus one power and cooling, sized UPS and generators tested annually and protected cabling inspected biennially.
C5 requires ninety minute fire sections, early detection with automatic voltage release, extinguishing systems and brigade alarm transmission.
C5 reviews, updates and tests the impact analysis and continuity plans at least annually and after significant change.
C5 tests restore procedures at least annually against the defined maximum downtime and permissible data loss.
Claims that did not hold
3 proposed mappings for this pair were rejected. They are kept in the graph rather than deleted, so what was thrown out is as inspectable as what survived. A crosswalk that never rejects anything is not being judged.
judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-IDM-07 requires the customer be notified of provider access to unencrypted data; it neither identifies nor protects confidential information
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-IDM-07 requires the customer be notified of provider access to unencrypted data; it authorises, modifies or removes no access based on role
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-IDM-07 notifies the cloud customer of provider access to its data; it gives no data subject any right to access their own personal information
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
The full report
Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.
Buy this crosswalk