Framework overlap

Does ISO 27019 cover ISO/IEC 25012:2008?

You hold ISO 27019 and have been told to do ISO/IEC 25012:2008. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

14% of ISO/IEC 25012:2008 you already have

ISO 27019 already covers about 14% of ISO/IEC 25012:2008, leaving 31 of 36 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 5 New work 31

No control in ISO 27019 maps directly to one in ISO/IEC 25012:2008. Everything counted as covered is covered because both map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather than a lookup.

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in ISO 27019 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

25012-Accessibility
Accessibility
25012-Accuracy
Accuracy
25012-Availability
Availability
25012-Completeness
Completeness
25012-Compliance
Compliance
25012-Confidentiality
Confidentiality
25012-Consistency
Consistency
25012-Credibility
Credibility
25012-Currentness
Currentness
25012-Efficiency
Efficiency
25012-Governance
Data Quality Governance
25012-Measurement
Data Quality Measurement Programme
25012-Portability
Portability
25012-Precision
Precision
25012-Recoverability
Recoverability
25012-Remediation
Data Quality Remediation
25012-Traceability
Traceability
25012-Understandability
Understandability
ISO-25012-4.1
Accuracy
ISO-25012-4.10
Precision
ISO-25012-4.12
Understandability
ISO-25012-4.14
Portability
ISO-25012-4.15
Recoverability
ISO-25012-4.2
Completeness
ISO-25012-4.3
Consistency
ISO-25012-4.4
Credibility
ISO-25012-4.5
Currentness
ISO-25012-4.6
Accessibility
ISO-25012-4.7
Compliance
ISO-25012-4.8
Confidentiality
ISO-25012-4.9
Efficiency
Show the 5 you already have
ISO-25012-4.11
Traceability
ISO-25012-4.13
Availability
ISO-25012-5.1
Establishing data quality requirements
ISO-25012-5.2
Defining data quality measures
ISO-25012-5.3
Planning and performing data quality evaluations

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ISO 27019 to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair ยท Today's edition