CIS Controls v8 covers 47.6% of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar
30 of the 63 controls in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CIS Controls v8. 33 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
AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar has 63 controls. Holding CIS Controls v8 already evidences 30 of them, so the work in front of you is 33 controls, not 63, which is 52% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. We do not know your hourly rate, how long a control takes you, or how many people you have, so there is no figure here in dollars or weeks. 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.
This number is directional. It says how much of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar your CIS Controls v8 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.
93 candidate mappings were examined and 0 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.
Maintained contact information for reporting incidents covers internal and external contacts
Designated incident handling personnel is the responder roster required
A documented incident response process covering the full lifecycle is the same plan
Routine incident response exercises are how playbooks get tested
Routine exercises with defined scenarios are the same simulation requirement
Post incident reviews feeding improvements back is the same learning requirement
Training developers in secure coding concepts is the identical requirement
Static and dynamic analysis applied within the lifecycle is the automated testing required
Claims that did not hold
Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.
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