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.
What this leaves you to do
NIS2 Directive has 28 controls. Holding DORA already evidences 17 of them, so the work in front of you is 11 controls, not 28, which is 39% 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 17 controls of NIS2 Directive you do not have to implement again, which is $17.59 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 17 already evidenced are | 68 hours | 136 hours | 272 hours |
| and the 11 remaining are | 44 hours | 88 hours | 176 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 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