NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 covers 71.4% of NIST SP 800-218
30 of the 42 controls in NIST SP 800-218 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5. 12 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
NIST SP 800-218 has 42 controls. Holding NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 already evidences 30 of them, so the work in front of you is 12 controls, not 42, which is 29% 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 30 controls of NIST SP 800-218 you do not have to implement again, which is $9.97 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 30 already evidenced are | 120 hours | 240 hours | 480 hours |
| and the 12 remaining are | 48 hours | 96 hours | 192 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 NIST SP 800-218 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.
67 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.
The developer works to a documented process addressing security requirements explicitly.
The development life cycle must incorporate security considerations and requirements from the start.
The development standards and tools in use, with their options and configuration, must be recorded.
Acquisition contracts must carry the security functional and assurance requirements to suppliers.
The life cycle must identify the individuals holding security roles and responsibilities.
Role-based training delivered before duties and repeated on change matches skills maintenance.
The developer must name the standards and tools in use and record the tool options selected.
Defined, approved and enforced access restrictions for change are how the toolchain enforces policy.
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