NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 covers 85.5% of CMMC 2.0
94 of the 110 controls in CMMC 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5. 16 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
CMMC 2.0 has 110 controls. Holding NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 already evidences 94 of them, so the work in front of you is 16 controls, not 110, which is 15% 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 94 controls of CMMC 2.0 you do not have to implement again, which is $3.18 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 94 already evidenced are | 376 hours | 752 hours | 1,504 hours |
| and the 16 remaining are | 64 hours | 128 hours | 256 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 CMMC 2.0 your NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 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.
222 candidate mappings were examined and 99 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. Coverage here is high and that is the correct answer rather than overreach. CMMC 2.0 Level 2 is NIST SP 800-171, tailored directly from NIST SP 800-53. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner, and every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it.
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.
AC-2 governs which users and devices hold accounts and therefore system access.
AC-3 enforces approved authorizations, limiting access to authorized users and processes.
AC-11 device lock requires session lock after inactivity with pattern hiding.
AC-12 session termination requires automatic termination after defined conditions.
SC-8 requires cryptographic protection of transmitted information, which covers remote sessions.
AC-17 requires authorizing each type of remote access, including privileged commands.
AC-18 requires authorizing wireless access before allowing connections.
AC-18 requires connection and configuration requirements for wireless, including authentication.
Claims that did not hold
96 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.
Not corroborated on review of this pair by Claude Code
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by Claude Code, Claude Max plan. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
Not corroborated on review of this pair by Claude Code
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
Not corroborated on review of this pair by Claude Code
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
Not corroborated on review of this pair by Claude Code
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at low confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by Claude Code, Claude Max plan. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
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