If you’re trying to protect anything digital — product data, customer profiles, invoices, engineering work — you’re probably already juggling too many systems: firewalls, backups, password managers, VPNs, who has access to what… and that’s before you ever touch compliance. This is where cybersecurity frameworks step in. Specifically, NIST and ISO 27001 are like roadmaps. They don’t defend you directly, but they tell you what to build, check, or monitor to stay secure in ways that matter long-term, not just in a panic after a phishing attack.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NIST refers to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Cybersecurity Framework (technically called NIST CSF). It’s primarily used in the United States, especially by organizations with federal contracts, but it’s so detailed and flexible that startups and Fortune 500s alike use it voluntarily. NIST is divided into five core functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. Each function is further broken down into categories and subcategories. If you hate ambiguous checklists, NIST almost feels like it was written by engineers.
ISO 27001, meanwhile, is internationally recognized — it’s not just guidance; it’s a certifiable standard. If your company wants to sell to Fortune 100s, deal with financial data, or expand globally, ISO 27001 compliance is often a requirement. Its approach is much more process-oriented, focused on setting up and operating a risk-based Information Security Management System (ISMS). That sounds dry, but it’s practically all about knowing where your vulnerabilities are and setting controlled checkpoints (like access reviews, asset inventories, or logging rules).
Think of NIST as a library of detailed actions you can tailor yourself, and ISO 27001 as a system where you must prove the actions are followed, audited, and improved.
Comparison Table:
Aspect
NIST CSF
ISO 27001
Origin
US Government (NIST)
International Standardization Organization
Certification
Not certifiable (guidance only)
Auditable and certifiable
Approach
Function-based practices
Risk-based management system
Flexibility
Highly customizable
More structured and procedural
Best for
Guidance in building controls
Demonstrating formal compliance
Ultimately, picking one isn’t always necessary — many businesses actually combine the two. The logic is usually: use NIST to design and evaluate your controls, then wrap those controls into policies and audits that follow ISO 27001’s risk-based structure to get officially certified.
Testing features from both frameworks in real setups
When you stack NIST and ISO 27001 side by side in live environments — like in a small SaaS team or a manufacturing SME — the differences become clear fast. To really test both, we ran mock implementations in two different environments: one using only NIST categories via a security dashboard (Drata) and another setting up ISO 27001 from scratch with a tool like Vanta.
NIST Test Case: We used the Identify and Protect categories to set up an asset inventory and access control policy using Drata. Mapping employees to systems like GitHub and AWS was fast since Drata pulled data from Google Workspace. However, trouble hit when we tried to connect legacy assets without known users — the tool marked them “unmanaged,” but gave no remediation steps. We had to create a custom tag system just to organize which assets carried critical workloads, which delayed the implementation by about two weeks.
ISO 27001 Test Case: Setting up the ISMS structure in Vanta was slower. ISO requires a statement of applicability — a document where you’re expected to define every control and mention why it applies or doesn’t. Creating that forced us to meet with almost every department head (HR, finance, infra) and gather answers about things they’d never seen before — like “what’s your process if user sessions don’t timeout automatically?”
Logging Practices: ISO requires logging policies and reviews. We set up centralized logging through Datadog, and ISO required us to not only verify logs existed, but also create a quarterly review schedule. NIST’s Detect category had similar goals but didn’t push for ongoing review schedules unless we specifically decided those mattered. In essence, ISO turns good intentions into tasks with timestamps.
Interestingly, overlapping tools can behave differently under each lens.
Bitwarden password manager: NIST calls for access protection, and password management hits that. ISO 27001, however, pushed us to add documentation showing our policy on password reuse, review cycles, and role-based password vault segmentation.
SOC 2 overlap: If you’ve already done work aligning to SOC 2 Type II audits, you’ll notice that ISO 27001 has more formality. SOC 2 might accept an email policy — ISO wants that policy signed off, reviewed yearly, and stored in your document register.
In the end, testing proved that NIST prioritizes action guidance — you’re often doing security — while ISO 27001 is decision and documentation heavy — you’re proving security exists, works, and improves.
When to use NIST over ISO 27001
NIST is a great foundation when you’re not yet ready to go through audit hell but still want your team to stop making guesses. If you’ve ever wondered things like “should we have MFA on company laptops” or “how do we know if someone disabled our logs,” NIST has an actual list for that. It’s a natural choice for startups, US-based tech teams, or internal security revamps.
Scenarios where NIST wins:
Internal teams building their security controls for the first time
Startups who’ve just been security-assessed by a customer and failed
Government-adjacent vendors who need to map to NIST 800-171 or DFARS
Organizations that don’t yet have a formal policy management system
How to implement quickly:
Use templates from the Center for Internet Security (CIS) to cross-map with NIST functions
Set mini-goals: one function per quarter, with Protect and Detect first
Deploy tools that align with NIST categories — endpoint detection software like SentinelOne covers both Protect and Detect, for example
No audits, no forms, but lots of actionable checklists — that’s the charm.
When ISO 27001 should be your main approach
If you’ve ever had a sales deal pause because the other party asked, “Do you have ISO 27001?”, you already know your answer. ISO is for proving maturity, consistency, and due diligence. It’s usually company-wide, and once you’re audited, there’s no “just skip this policy doc” — everything is tracked.
You’ll want ISO if:
You plan to sell into enterprise or regulated sectors
You’re already a global company and need a gold-standard security certification
You want to align security and compliance formally (especially if you already do GDPR)
Implementation suggestions:
Don’t start without a tool. Tools like Vanta, Secureframe, or Drata (if ISO-focused) help track evidence per control, assign tasks, and prepare for audits
Map business risk to assets first. The auditors always ask: “Why did you skip this control?” If you can answer with a documented risk assessment, you’re safe
Policies must align with actual workflows. Don’t write a ‘Quarterly Backup Policy’ if your team only backs up monthly
ISO 27001 is demanding, but it forces your org to have security muscle memory instead of heroics.
Digital tools that support NIST or ISO 27001
Whether you’re mapping NIST’s Identify category or documenting ISO 27001 asset relevance, your tools matter. Manual tracking dies quickly — most teams burn out reconciling what Jira vs Slack vs Notion vs Splunk achieved. Here’s a look at what we used:
Tool
Best For
Framework Alignment
Vanta
ISMS tracking, audit automation
ISO 27001
Drata
Policy & control evidence gathering
ISO 27001 and NIST mapping
Tugboat Logic
Internal risk assessment tracking
ISO 27001
CIS Controls
Free implementation guides
NIST CSF
All of them can auto-import user lists, systems, and controls — but they differ drastically in how well they guide you if you’re not a security expert. Drata filled in gaps with pre-written policy templates, while Tugboat made us write them from scratch.
MFA Tracking Example: We removed a user’s GitHub 2FA incorrectly, and Drata notified us three weeks later. ISO required that we not only fix it, but log the time-to-remediate, while NIST’s Protect function didn’t specify how fast issues must be closed. That context only comes with tooling awareness.
Where both NIST and ISO trips up beginners
First-time users almost always hit the same traps.
No asset list: If you don’t have an updated list of every app, server, storage share, and user — you’ll fail step one in either framework. Basic tools like Asset Panda or your MDM software (like Kandji) can help by scraping devices and users.
Policies written once: Teams often write their security policies during setup, store them in Drive or Notion, and never update them. ISO requires you to mark review dates — missed one by accident, and the audit’s at risk.
Partial automation: Most people start logging only logs they personally care about, like AWS root account access. But NIST Detect expects a full security event logging process. Missing minor events (like changing a security group) will eventually be caught.
As a final point: frameworks won’t protect your data — but your discipline in applying them will.
