Know exactly where you're non-conformant — and what to fix first
"Where do we actually stand?" shouldn't take a week to answer
You're accountable for conformity against frameworks like ISO 27001, NIS2, and DORA — but "where do we actually stand?" is surprisingly hard to answer. Controls live in one place, evidence in another, and ownership often nowhere at all.
Manual gap identification means cross-referencing requirement lists against implementation status by hand, framework by framework. It's slow, it goes stale the moment a control changes, and it rarely tells you what to fix first.
When an auditor or supervisory authority asks for your conformity position, you need a defensible answer per control — not a color-coded guess assembled the night before.
What you can do with Compliance Gap Analysis
- Surface unimplemented and partially implemented controls across each framework in one view.
- Mark control applicability per organization so not-applicable controls don't distort your conformity picture.
- See compliance percentage by control category — calculated, not hand-tallied.
- Flag controls lacking evidence or a responsible owner, not just those left unimplemented.
- Generate gap-analysis reports by framework for ISO 27001, NIST CSF, NIS2, and more.
- Compare conformity across categories and surface ranked remediation priorities from the gaps.
What it delivers to your program
- Answer "where do we stand?" on demand — a calculated conformity position per framework, ready when an auditor asks.
- Prioritize remediation with confidence — work the ranked gap list instead of guessing what matters most.
- Close evidence and ownership holes before they become audit findings, not after.
- Retire the manual gap hunt for an always-current view you can defend upward.
Built for compliance
DPMS helps you evidence the specific obligations that govern control conformity — mapped to the article and control, never to "the GDPR."
| What DPMS does | Maps to | How |
|---|---|---|
| Tracks conformity status per control (applicable / conformant) | ISO 27001:2022 Annex A | Applicability and implementation status captured per control, scored by category |
| Evidences control gaps and remediation priorities | NIS2 Art. 21 | Gap-analysis reports flagging missing controls, evidence, and ownership |
| Documents resilience-control conformity | DORA Art. 6 | Per-category compliance percentage across the ICT risk-management framework |
| Surfaces controls lacking evidence of effectiveness | NIST CSF (Govern / Identify) | Flags controls without attached evidence or assigned responsibility |
| Supports accountability for security measures | GDPR Art. 32 | Conformity tracking for technical and organizational security controls |
Why Priverion
Unlike general-purpose GRC tools that stop at a checklist, Priverion measures conformity with applicability awareness — not-applicable controls don't inflate or deflate your score — and flags the two failure modes auditors actually probe: missing evidence and missing ownership.
Because gap analysis lives inside one unified privacy and InfoSec platform, the same controls feed your risk register, vendor assessments, and processing records — no re-keying, one source of truth for where you stand.
Questions CISOs ask before a demo
Which frameworks does the gap analysis cover?
How is the compliance percentage calculated?
Does it only flag unimplemented controls?
Can we run this across multiple entities?
Explore related capabilities
Ready to see where you stand?
