DORA covers 60.7% of NIS2 Directive
17 of the 28 controls in NIS2 Directive are already satisfied by evidence you collected for DORA. 11 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.
This number is directional. It says how much of NIS2 Directive your DORA 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.
39 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, 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.
Management body ownership, approval and oversight of the ICT risk framework is NIS2's board approval duty.
ICT security awareness programmes and resilience training cover NIS2's regular staff training limb.
DORA obliges the management body to allocate training, which is NIS2's board training limb.
A sound, comprehensive, documented and annually reviewed ICT risk framework is the risk analysis and policy set.
Impact-based incident classification is the triage scheme incident handling requires.
Identify, track, log and categorise by priority and severity with named roles is incident handling.
Layered detection with alert thresholds enabling timely response is the detection limb of incident handling.
Crisis communication plans and designated communication policies are the crisis management layer.
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