Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 72.9% of Azure Security Benchmark
62 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 23 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
Azure Security Benchmark has 85 controls. Holding Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 already evidences 62 of them, so the work in front of you is 23 controls, not 85, which is 27% 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 62 controls of Azure Security Benchmark you do not have to implement again, which is $4.82 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 62 already evidenced are | 248 hours | 496 hours | 992 hours |
| and the 23 remaining are | 92 hours | 184 hours | 368 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 Azure Security Benchmark your Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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.
123 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.
Every physical and logical asset held in a secured tracking catalogue is the inventory.
Classifying assets by the business risk they carry records their risk.
A maintained list of permitted services, applications and sources is deployment restriction.
Granting each identity only the access its function requires limits asset management rights.
Preventing assets being added, removed, updated or administered without authorisation is this control.
Publishing and maintaining the allowed application list is the allow list required.
Backup on a defined cycle with protected copies is the automated backup requirement.
Proving by restore testing that data can actually be recovered is this requirement.
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