ISO 27701:2019 covers 52.5% of GDPR
21 of the 40 controls in GDPR are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27701:2019. 19 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
GDPR has 40 controls. Holding ISO 27701:2019 already evidences 21 of them, so the work in front of you is 19 controls, not 40, which is 48% 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 21 controls of GDPR you do not have to implement again, which is $14.24 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 21 already evidenced are | 84 hours | 168 hours | 336 hours |
| and the 19 remaining are | 76 hours | 152 hours | 304 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 GDPR your ISO 27701:2019 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.
57 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.
Requires defined response times, notice of delay and fees only for excessive requests.
Requires accessible and timely means for individuals to exercise their rights.
Requires timely, concise, transparent, intelligible information in clear and plain language.
Fixes the information content and timing, matching this article item for item.
Requires the information given at the time of collection and permanently accessible after.
Requires a copy of the personal data processed to be provided on request.
Requires access to personal data without undue delay within a defined response time.
Requires correction, dissemination of corrections, and a route for accuracy disputes.
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