Framework overlap

Does ISO/SAE 21434 cover LGPD?

You hold ISO/SAE 21434 and have been told to do LGPD. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

50% of LGPD you already have

ISO/SAE 21434 already covers about 50% of LGPD, leaving 4 of 8 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 1 Likely covered 3 New work 4

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in ISO/SAE 21434 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

LGPD-BR-Enforcement-Sanctions-ANPD-Article-52-55-Administrative-Sanctions-2-Percent-Turnover-50M-BRL
Brazil LGPD Enforcement + Sanctions + Article 52 + 2% Turnover + 50M BRL + ANPD
LGPD-BR-Lawful-Basis-Consent-Notice-Article-6-10-Principles-Article-7-Hypotheses-Article-9-Transparency
Brazil LGPD Lawful Basis + 10 Principles + Article 6-10 + Hypotheses + Transparency
LGPD-BR-Scope-Lei-13-709-2018-14-August-2018-Effective-18-September-2020-ANPD-Constitution-Article-5-X-XII
Brazil LGPD Scope + Lei 13.709/2018 + Congresso Nacional + Effective 18 September 2020 + ANPD
LGPD-BR-Sensitive-Personal-Data-Children-Article-11-14-Public-Health-Genetic-Biometric-Article-17-Public-Sector
Brazil LGPD Sensitive Data + Children + Public Sector + Articles 11-14 + 17
Show the 4 you already have
LGPD-BR-Security-Article-46-48-Breach-Notification-ANPD-Reasonable-Time-Incident-Response-CSIRT
Brazil LGPD Security + Article 46-48 + Breach Notification + ANPD + Incident Response
LGPD-BR-Cross-Border-International-Transfer-Article-33-Adequacy-SCC-BCR-ANPD-Approval-Mercosur-RIPD
Brazil LGPD Cross-Border + Article 33 + Adequacy + SCC + BCR + Mercosur + RIPD
LGPD-BR-Data-Subject-Rights-Article-18-Confirmation-Access-Correction-Anonymization-Portability-Revoke-Sharing
Brazil LGPD Data Subject Rights + Article 18 + 9 Rights + Confirmation + Anonymization
LGPD-BR-Governance-Encarregado-DPO-ROPA-DPIA-Privacy-by-Design-Article-46-50-Codes-of-Conduct
Brazil LGPD Governance + Encarregado (DPO) + ROPA + DPIA + Articles 46-50

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ISO/SAE 21434 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