ISO 27001:2022 covers 56.3% of Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1
111 of the 197 controls in Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27001:2022. 86 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
Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 has 197 controls. Holding ISO 27001:2022 already evidences 111 of them, so the work in front of you is 86 controls, not 197, which is 44% 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 your ISO 27001:2022 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.
229 candidate mappings were examined and 11 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. This pair was additionally re-checked after CSA CCM v4.0.1 was rebuilt from the CAIQ v4.0.1 source on 2026-08-19: its mappings were originally judged when CCM carried no requirement text, a sample of 70 across the 21 CCM pairs found about 80 percent holding cleanly, and the two identified errors were corrected before release.
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.
Independent review of information security establishes the audit and assurance regime and its cycle.
Requires reviews by parties independent of the area assessed, at planned intervals.
Requires regular verification that systems comply with applicable policies and standards.
Identification of legal, statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements is the compliance baseline.
Application security requirements must be identified, specified and approved before development.
Secure development rules must be established, documented and applied to in-house development.
Requires documented, approved security requirements acting as the application security baseline.
Secure coding principles apply to application development in line with policy.
Claims that did not hold
1 proposed mappings for this pair were rejected. They are kept in the graph rather than deleted, so what was thrown out is as inspectable as what survived. A crosswalk that never rejects anything is not being judged.
re-pointed 2026-08-19: judged when CCM carried no requirement text, so it landed on the control whose title resembled the requirement rather than the control that carries it
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
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