# Cybersecurity Frameworks Comparison
Cybersecurity frameworks provide structured approaches to managing information security risk. The most common question organizations ask when starting a security program is: "Which framework should we use?" The answer depends on the organization's industry, customer base, regulatory environment, and strategic objectives. This article compares the five most widely adopted frameworks head-to-head, clarifying what each does, who it is for, and how they relate to each other.
The five frameworks are not competitors. They serve different purposes and frequently overlap. An organization may implement CIS Controls as the operational control set, align to NIST CSF as the strategic framework, pursue ISO 27001 certification for international customers, achieve SOC 2 attestation for domestic B2B customers, and comply with CMMC for defense contracts. Multi-framework alignment (mapping common controls once and referencing them across all applicable frameworks) is the operationally efficient approach. CDA's RGA-H01 mission (Multi-Framework Compliance Alignment, 24 hours) builds this alignment.
What it is. A voluntary framework developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology that provides a common language for managing cybersecurity risk. CSF 2.0 (released February 2024) organizes security into six functions: Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.
Who it is for. Originally developed for U.S. critical infrastructure, CSF is now used by organizations of all sizes and industries as a strategic security framework. CSF is the most referenced framework in U.S. federal policy and is increasingly adopted internationally.
How it works. CSF defines functions, categories, and subcategories that describe desired security outcomes without prescribing specific controls. The organization creates a Current Profile (where we are) and a Target Profile (where we want to be), then develops a roadmap to close the gaps. CSF is a risk management framework, not a control checklist.
Certification. CSF does not have a formal certification process. Organizations self-assess or engage third parties to evaluate their CSF alignment. CSF is used as a strategic reference, not as a certification target.
Cost to implement. No licensing cost (the framework is free). Implementation cost varies by organizational maturity: applying CSF to an existing security program is a mapping exercise. Building a program from scratch using CSF as the blueprint requires investment in controls across all six functions.
Best for. Organizations that need a strategic framework to organize and communicate their security program, U.S. organizations that want alignment with federal expectations, and organizations that need a common language for discussing security with partners, regulators, and leadership.
What it is. An international standard for information security management systems (ISMS). ISO 27001 specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an ISMS, with 93 controls in Annex A organized across four themes (Organizational, People, Physical, Technological).
Who it is for. Organizations that need internationally recognized certification, particularly those operating in Europe, serving European customers, or participating in international supply chains. ISO 27001 is the global standard for demonstrating security governance to international stakeholders.
How it works. ISO 27001 requires a management system: leadership commitment, defined scope, risk assessment, control selection based on risk, implementation, monitoring, internal audit, management review, and continual improvement. The management system ensures that security is governed systematically, not implemented ad hoc.
Certification. Third-party certification by an accredited audit body. Stage 1 (documentation review) and Stage 2 (implementation audit) with annual surveillance audits and three-year recertification. Certification is the primary value: it demonstrates to customers, partners, and regulators that the organization has an independently verified security governance system.
Cost to implement. Audit fees: $30,000 to $100,000+ depending on scope and organizational size. Implementation costs (controls, documentation, internal audit program) vary significantly. Annual maintenance: surveillance audit fees plus ongoing operational costs.
Best for. Organizations serving international markets, European customers, or any stakeholder that recognizes ISO 27001 as the standard for security assurance.
What it is. An attestation framework developed by the AICPA that evaluates an organization's controls relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. A CPA firm examines the controls and issues a report expressing an opinion on whether they were suitably designed and operating effectively over a defined period.
Who it is for. B2B SaaS companies, cloud service providers, managed service providers, and any organization that processes, stores, or transmits customer data. SOC 2 is the de facto trust standard for the U.S. B2B technology market.
How it works. The organization selects applicable Trust Services Criteria (Security is always included; Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy are optional). The organization implements controls that satisfy the criteria. A CPA firm audits the controls over a 6-12 month observation period and issues the SOC 2 Type II report.
Certification. SOC 2 is an attestation (an auditor's opinion), not a certification. The distinction is technical: the output is a report with an opinion, not a certificate. In practice, the market treats it equivalently to certification.
Cost to implement. Audit fees: $30,000 to $100,000+. First-year implementation costs (GRC platform, control deployment, evidence collection processes) can double the total investment. Annual recurring: audit fees plus operational maintenance.
Best for. U.S. B2B technology companies selling to mid-market and enterprise customers. SOC 2 is the first compliance question in most U.S. enterprise procurement processes.
What it is. A prioritized set of 153 cybersecurity safeguards organized into 18 control groups, developed by the Center for Internet Security through a community consensus process. Controls are organized into three Implementation Groups: IG1 (56 essential safeguards for all organizations), IG2 (74 additional safeguards for moderate-risk organizations), and IG3 (23 additional safeguards for high-risk organizations).
Who it is for. Any organization that needs a practical, prioritized list of security controls to implement. CIS Controls are particularly valuable for organizations that are building a security program and need to know what to do first, second, and third.
How it works. Unlike CSF (which defines outcomes) and ISO 27001 (which defines a management system), CIS Controls define specific, actionable safeguards: "Deploy automated patch management" (CIS Control 7.4), "Configure centralized log management" (CIS Control 8.2), "Deploy MFA for all remote access" (CIS Control 6.3). The specificity makes CIS Controls the most operationally actionable framework.
Certification. No formal certification. CIS Controls are used as an implementation guide, not as a certification target. Some organizations self-assess against CIS Controls and report compliance to IG1, IG2, or IG3.
Cost to implement. The framework is free. Implementation cost is the cost of deploying the controls themselves (tools, personnel, processes).
Best for. Organizations that need a prioritized implementation guide. CIS IG1 is the recommended starting point for organizations building a security program from scratch. CIS Controls are the operational complement to CSF's strategic framework: CSF tells you what outcomes to achieve, CIS Controls tell you what controls to deploy.
What it is. The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification developed by the U.S. Department of Defense to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Federal Contract Information (FCI) in the defense supply chain. CMMC 2.0 has three levels: Level 1 (15 practices, self-assessment), Level 2 (110 NIST 800-171 practices, third-party assessment), and Level 3 (110+ enhanced practices, government assessment).
Who it is for. Defense contractors, defense subcontractors, and any organization in the defense supply chain that handles CUI or FCI. CMMC is a contractual requirement, not a voluntary framework. No CMMC, no DOD contracts.
How it works. Level 1 organizations self-assess against 15 basic practices and attest compliance. Level 2 organizations undergo third-party assessment (by a CMMC Third-Party Assessment Organization, C3PAO) against the 110 practices in NIST SP 800-171. Level 3 organizations undergo government-led assessment against enhanced requirements.
Certification. Third-party assessment (Level 2) or government assessment (Level 3). Certification is required for contract award. The DOD plans to include CMMC requirements in contracts through phased implementation beginning in 2025.
Cost to implement. Significant. Level 2 compliance requires implementing all 110 NIST 800-171 controls, which may require substantial infrastructure changes (encryption, access controls, monitoring, incident response), plus assessment fees ($30,000 to $100,000+ for C3PAO assessment). Many small defense subcontractors face compliance costs that represent a significant percentage of their contract revenue.
Best for. Any organization that holds or will hold DOD contracts involving CUI. CMMC is not optional for the defense supply chain. It is a prerequisite for contract eligibility.
| Dimension | NIST CSF | ISO 27001 | SOC 2 | CIS Controls | CMMC | |-----------|----------|-----------|-------|-------------|------| | Type | Voluntary framework | Certifiable standard | Attestation report | Implementation guide | Contractual requirement | | Scope | All industries | All industries | B2B service orgs | All organizations | Defense supply chain | | Geography | U.S.-focused, growing international | Global | Primarily U.S. | Global | U.S. DOD | | Certification | No | Yes (3rd party) | Yes (CPA attestation) | No | Yes (C3PAO or government) | | Prescriptiveness | Low (outcomes) | Medium (management system) | Medium (criteria-based) | High (specific controls) | High (110 specific practices) | | Cost | Free framework | $30K-$100K+ audit | $30K-$100K+ audit | Free framework | $30K-$100K+ assessment + controls | | Renewal | N/A | Annual surveillance, 3-year recert | Annual | N/A | Periodic reassessment | | Best starting point | Strategic roadmap | International assurance | U.S. B2B market access | Operational implementation | DOD contract eligibility |
The frameworks are complementary, not competing:
CSF + CIS Controls: CSF provides the strategic framework (what outcomes to achieve). CIS Controls provide the operational implementation guide (what controls to deploy to achieve those outcomes). Together, they cover strategy and execution.
CSF + ISO 27001: CSF organizes the security program. ISO 27001 certifies the management system. An organization aligned to CSF that pursues ISO 27001 certification maps its CSF implementation to ISO 27001's Annex A controls. The 2022 editions of both frameworks include cross-mapping references.
SOC 2 + ISO 27001: Both require control implementation and third-party verification. Organizations pursuing both map common controls once. The overlap is approximately 70%: MFA, access reviews, encryption, vulnerability management, incident response, change management, and vendor management satisfy both frameworks through a single control set.
CMMC + NIST 800-171 + CSF: CMMC Level 2 is NIST 800-171. NIST 800-171 maps to NIST CSF. An organization that aligns to CSF and implements NIST 800-171 controls is positioned for CMMC Level 2 assessment.
All frameworks + CDA's PDM: The PDM organizes operational work by what you defend (six domains). Each framework's controls map to PDM domains. MFA is an IAT control regardless of whether it satisfies CSF PR.AA, ISO 27001 A.8.5, SOC 2 CC6.1, CIS Control 6.3, or CMMC AC.L2-3.5.3. CDA implements the control once, in the IAT domain, and maps it to every applicable framework through RGA-H01 (Multi-Framework Compliance Alignment).
The decision framework:
Do you sell to U.S. enterprises? SOC 2 first. It is the market requirement.
Do you serve international customers? ISO 27001. It is the global standard.
Do you hold DOD contracts? CMMC. It is the contractual requirement.
Are you building a program from scratch? Start with CIS IG1 for operational controls and CSF for strategic organization. Add SOC 2, ISO 27001, or CMMC when market, customer, or contractual requirements demand it.
Do you face multiple frameworks? Multi-framework alignment from day one. CDA's RGA-H01 mission maps common controls across all applicable frameworks, eliminating the duplicative implementation that destroys compliance efficiency.
CDA's Perpetual Compliance Assurance (PCA) methodology treats all frameworks as views of the same underlying control set. "Compliance is not an event. It is a state." The organization implements controls once (organized by PDM domain), maps them to every applicable framework (through RGA-H01), collects evidence continuously (through GRC automation), and demonstrates compliance to any auditor, against any framework, at any time.
The PDM does not replace these frameworks. It organizes the operational work that these frameworks require. NIST CSF tells you to "Protect" (PR function). ISO 27001 tells you to implement "Technological Controls" (Annex A). SOC 2 tells you to meet "Common Criteria" (CC6, CC7). CIS Controls tell you to "Deploy MFA" (Control 6.3). The PDM tells you this is an IAT control, owned by the IAT domain, implemented through IAT-B03, and measured in the IAT Posture Score. The frameworks define the what. The PDM organizes the how.
Word count: 2,043