CMMC 2.0 covers 38.8% of Azure Security Benchmark
33 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CMMC 2.0. 52 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 CMMC 2.0 already evidences 33 of them, so the work in front of you is 52 controls, not 85, which is 61% 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 Azure Security Benchmark your CMMC 2.0 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.
101 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.
The same practice requires maintaining inventories of organizational systems
Enforcing physical and logical access restrictions for change limits asset modification
A deny-all allow-by-exception software policy is application allowlisting on hosts
Protecting the confidentiality of backup CUI at storage locations is the same requirement
Cryptographic mechanisms preventing unauthorized disclosure in transit is the same requirement
Protecting the confidentiality of CUI at rest is the same requirement
Establishing and managing cryptographic keys is the identical requirement
Periodic and real-time scanning of files from external sources is modern protection
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