CMMC 2.0 covers 35% of FedRAMP Moderate
113 of the 323 controls in FedRAMP Moderate are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CMMC 2.0. 210 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
FedRAMP Moderate has 323 controls. Holding CMMC 2.0 already evidences 113 of them, so the work in front of you is 210 controls, not 323, which is 65% 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 113 controls of FedRAMP Moderate you do not have to implement again, which is $2.65 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 113 already evidenced are | 452 hours | 904 hours | 1,808 hours |
| and the 210 remaining are | 840 hours | 1,680 hours | 3,360 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 FedRAMP Moderate 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.
185 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.
Session lock with pattern-hiding display after inactivity is the same requirement.
The practice explicitly requires a pattern-hiding display on session lock.
Terminating a session after a defined condition is the same requirement.
Monitoring and controlling remote access sessions presumes authorised remote access.
Monitoring and controlling remote access sessions is the same requirement.
Cryptographic protection of remote access confidentiality is the same requirement.
Routing remote access through managed access control points is the same requirement.
Authorising remote execution of privileged commands is the same 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