Question 1

How does SOC 2 compare to ISO 27001?

Accepted Answer

SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are both widely recognised security standards, but they differ in origin, structure, and application. SOC 2 is a North American attestation framework developed by the AICPA, while ISO 27001 is an international certification standard developed by ISO. Understanding these differences helps organisations choose the right framework—or pursue both efficiently. Structurally, ISO 27001 focuses on establishing an Information Security Management System (ISMS) with continuous improvement through the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. It includes 93 Annex A controls organised by theme. SOC 2 is based on Trust Service Criteria covering Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy, with Security being mandatory and others selected based on business needs. The attestation process differs significantly. ISO 27001 results in a formal certification issued by an accredited certification body, valid for three years with annual surveillance audits. SOC 2 produces an attestation report (Type I or Type II) issued by a licensed CPA firm, which is typically renewed annually without formal certification status. Market expectations vary by geography and industry. North American customers, particularly in technology and SaaS, often require SOC 2 reports. European and international enterprise customers frequently expect ISO 27001 certification. Many organisations pursue both to satisfy diverse customer requirements, leveraging the significant overlap between frameworks. Approximately 70-80% of controls overlap between SOC 2 and ISO 27001. Organisations pursuing both can implement common controls through a Unified Control Library, collecting evidence once and applying it to both frameworks. This integrated approach reduces effort compared to treating each framework separately.

Question 2

Which compliance framework should I start with?

Accepted Answer

Choosing your first compliance framework should be driven by customer requirements, regulatory obligations, industry expectations, and strategic business goals. There is no universally correct starting point, but understanding the trade-offs helps organisations make informed decisions that maximise value from their compliance investments. If your customers are primarily North American technology companies, SOC 2 is often the best starting point. It has become the de facto standard for SaaS vendors selling to enterprises, and many procurement processes explicitly require SOC 2 Type II reports. SOC 2 Type I can be achieved relatively quickly, providing an initial credential while building toward Type II. For organisations with international customers or those operating in Europe, ISO 27001 often provides greater value. It is recognised globally, demonstrates a mature security management system, and aligns well with European regulatory expectations. ISO 27001 also provides a strong foundation for subsequent regulatory compliance with GDPR, NIS 2, and DORA. Regulatory requirements may dictate the starting point. Healthcare organisations handling patient data should prioritise HIPAA. Financial services companies in Europe must comply with DORA. Organisations processing EU personal data need GDPR compliance. These regulatory frameworks often take precedence over voluntary certifications. Consider the long-term compliance roadmap when choosing your first framework. Starting with a framework that has significant overlap with future requirements creates a foundation for efficient multi-framework compliance. ISO 27001 and SOC 2 both provide excellent foundations, as they address common security controls that appear across nearly all regulatory and industry standards.

Question 3

Can I pursue multiple certifications simultaneously?

Accepted Answer

Yes, organisations can and often do pursue multiple certifications simultaneously. With proper planning and a unified approach, pursuing multiple frameworks together can be more efficient than sequential certification, as overlapping controls are implemented once rather than repeatedly. However, simultaneous pursuit requires careful resource planning and realistic timeline expectations. The key to successful simultaneous certification is control reuse. Frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, and regulatory requirements such as GDPR share 60-80% of their control requirements. By building a Unified Control Library that addresses common requirements, organisations implement foundational controls that satisfy multiple frameworks from the outset. Resource requirements increase with simultaneous certification, but not proportionally. If single-framework certification requires 100% effort, two frameworks might require 150-160% rather than 200%, due to control reuse and shared evidence collection. Organisations should honestly assess their capacity before committing to simultaneous pursuit. Audit coordination is important when pursuing multiple certifications. Some auditors can assess multiple frameworks in integrated engagements, reducing total audit time. Even with separate auditors, coordinating timing allows evidence prepared for one audit to be fresh and available for subsequent audits. This requires careful scheduling and communication. For organisations new to compliance, it may be prudent to achieve one certification first before adding others. The experience builds internal expertise, establishes evidence collection processes, and identifies gaps that might complicate simultaneous pursuit. Once the first certification is achieved, adding subsequent frameworks becomes more predictable.

Question 4

How do EU regulations (NIS 2, DORA, GDPR) overlap?

Accepted Answer

The major EU regulations—NIS 2, DORA, and GDPR—address different aspects of digital security and data protection but share significant conceptual and practical overlap. Understanding these relationships enables organisations to build integrated compliance programmes that satisfy multiple regulations efficiently. GDPR focuses on personal data protection and applies to any organisation processing EU residents' data. NIS 2 addresses cybersecurity for essential and important entities across critical sectors. DORA specifically targets digital operational resilience in financial services. Despite different scopes, all three require robust security measures, incident management, and governance structures. Common requirements across these regulations include: risk management frameworks and regular risk assessments, security measures proportionate to identified risks, incident detection, response, and reporting procedures, vendor and third-party risk management, documentation and accountability requirements, and management-level responsibility and oversight. Key differences lie in specificity and sector focus. DORA includes detailed requirements for ICT risk management, resilience testing, and third-party oversight specific to financial services. NIS 2 emphasises supply chain security and incident reporting timelines. GDPR uniquely addresses data subject rights, lawful basis for processing, and data minimisation principles. Organisations subject to multiple EU regulations should build integrated compliance programmes. A unified control library mapping requirements across GDPR, NIS 2, and DORA (where applicable) ensures consistent implementation and evidence collection. This approach is particularly valuable for financial services companies that may face all three regulations simultaneously.

Question 5

What frameworks do enterprise customers typically require?

Accepted Answer

Enterprise customers typically require evidence of security and compliance maturity from their vendors and partners. The specific frameworks requested depend on the customer's industry, geography, regulatory environment, and risk management practices. Understanding common requirements helps vendors prepare for enterprise sales processes. SOC 2 Type II is the most commonly requested framework for technology vendors selling to North American enterprises. It provides independent attestation that security controls have operated effectively over time. Many enterprise security questionnaires include a checkbox for SOC 2, and providing a current report can significantly accelerate procurement approvals. ISO 27001 certification is widely expected by international enterprises and European customers. It demonstrates a systematic approach to information security management and is often required in RFPs and vendor assessments. Global enterprises may require both SOC 2 and ISO 27001 to satisfy requirements across their operating regions. Industry-specific requirements add to baseline expectations. Healthcare enterprises require evidence of HIPAA compliance from vendors handling protected health information. Financial services customers may require SOC 1 for financial reporting controls, and increasingly expect DORA compliance from EU-based vendors. Government contracts often require specific certifications such as FedRAMP, BIO, or national security standards. Beyond formal certifications, enterprises increasingly evaluate vendors on their security practices, vulnerability management programmes, incident response capabilities, and supply chain risk management. Providing comprehensive security documentation, completing vendor questionnaires promptly, and demonstrating continuous compliance monitoring all contribute to successful enterprise sales relationships.

Frequently Asked Questions

Framework Comparison

Still have questions?