NIS2 Directive covers 65.4% of DORA
17 of the 26 controls in DORA are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIS2 Directive. 9 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
DORA has 26 controls. Holding NIS2 Directive already evidences 17 of them, so the work in front of you is 9 controls, not 26, which is 35% 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 DORA 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 9 remaining are | 36 hours | 72 hours | 144 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 DORA your NIS2 Directive 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.
36 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.
Incident handling's detect and triage capability with severity levels is DORA's detection requirement.
Continuity, disaster recovery and crisis management with service-derived objectives is DORA's response and recovery.
Backup management protected against the same event and proven by restore testing is DORA's backup duty.
Vulnerability handling and disclosure supplies the vulnerability and threat information DORA requires gathering.
Post-incident review feeding measure effectiveness is DORA's learning and evolving loop.
Communicating threats and the remedies open to recipients is DORA's responsible disclosure limb.
Duty to warn affected service recipients of significant incidents is DORA's client crisis communication.
Severity levels, escalation, named responsibilities and classification are DORA's incident management process.
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