NIST SP 800-218 covers 20.6% of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar
13 of the 63 controls in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-218. 50 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
AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar has 63 controls. Holding NIST SP 800-218 already evidences 13 of them, so the work in front of you is 50 controls, not 63, which is 79% 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar your NIST SP 800-218 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.
31 candidate mappings were examined and 0 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.
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.
Role appropriate secure development training is provided, tracked and refreshed.
Dynamic application security testing and fuzzing run on a defined cadence.
Automated static analysis is embedded in the development pipeline.
Software composition analysis of acquired components against vulnerability databases.
Tooling is configured so enforcement is automatic rather than a manual checklist.
Penetration testing on a risk driven cadence is explicitly required.
Testing is scoped, executed and documented with findings recorded and triaged.
Human readable source is reviewed manually alongside automated analysis.
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