CMMC
DoD certification for cybersecurity maturity in defense supply chain
IATF 16949
International standard for automotive quality management systems.
Quick Verdict
CMMC certifies cybersecurity for DoD contractors protecting FCI/CUI via tiered assessments, while IATF 16949 mandates quality management for automotive suppliers using core tools like APQP and FMEA. Organizations adopt them for contract eligibility and supply chain reliability.
CMMC
Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program
Key Features
- Three cumulative certification levels for FCI/CUI/APT protection
- Independent C3PAO/DIBCAC assessments beyond self-attestation
- Direct mapping to NIST 800-171/172 and FAR controls
- Mandatory supply chain flow-down via DFARS clauses
- Limited 180-day POA&Ms with strict closure timelines
IATF 16949
IATF 16949:2016
Key Features
- Mandatory core tools: APQP, FMEA, PPAP, MSA, SPC
- Top management non-delegable QMS responsibility
- Enhanced supplier development and second-party audits
- Product safety processes with special characteristics
- Risk-based planning and contingency measures
Detailed Analysis
A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.
CMMC Details
What It Is
Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) is a DoD program verifying cybersecurity for Federal Contract Information (FCI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in the Defense Industrial Base (DIB). It employs a tiered, cumulative model with three levels, using risk-based scoping aligned to FAR 52.204-21, NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2, and NIST SP 800-172 standards.
Key Components
- 14 domains (e.g., Access Control, Incident Response) with 17 (Level 1), 110 (Level 2), or 134 practices (Level 3).
- Assessment via self (Level 1/2), C3PAO (Level 2), or DIBCAC (Level 3); 3-year validity with annual affirmations.
- System Security Plans (SSP) and limited POA&Ms (180-day closure).
Why Organizations Use It
- Mandatory for DoD contracts to ensure eligibility and avoid debarment.
- Reduces breach risks, enhances supply chain trust, and provides bid advantages.
- Builds operational resilience and aligns with broader NIST frameworks.
Implementation Overview
Phased approach: governance, scoping/gap analysis, remediation, assessment preparation, certification, sustainment. Targets DIB primes/subcontractors of all sizes; requires evidence collection and flow-down compliance. Complex scoping critical for enclaves.
IATF 16949 Details
What It Is
IATF 16949:2016 is the global quality management system (QMS) standard for automotive production and relevant service parts, building on ISO 9001:2015 with sector-specific requirements. It adopts a process-based, risk-based approach aligned with PDCA to prevent defects, reduce variation, and ensure supply chain consistency.
Key Components
- Clauses 4–10 mirroring ISO 9001, plus automotive additions like core tools (APQP, FMEA, PPAP, MSA, SPC, Control Plans).
- Focus on product safety, supplier management, CSRs, contingency planning, and warranty systems.
- Certification via IATF-approved bodies with staged audits.
Why Organizations Use It
- Meets OEM contractual demands for market access.
- Reduces COPQ, warranty costs, and recalls via prevention.
- Enhances competitiveness, stakeholder trust, and operational efficiency.
Implementation Overview
- Phased: gap analysis, core tool deployment, training, internal audits, certification.
- Applies to automotive suppliers globally; high rigor for multi-site operations.
Key Differences
| Aspect | CMMC | IATF 16949 |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Cybersecurity for FCI/CUI protection | Quality management for automotive production |
| Industry | Defense Industrial Base contractors | Automotive OEMs and suppliers |
| Nature | DoD certification program, contract-mandated | Industry QMS standard, certification required |
| Testing | Self/C3PAO/DIBCAC assessments every 3 years | Third-party certification audits, surveillance |
| Penalties | Contract ineligibility, debarment | Loss of OEM contracts, certification suspension |
Scope
Industry
Nature
Testing
Penalties
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about CMMC and IATF 16949
CMMC FAQ
IATF 16949 FAQ
You Might also be Interested in These Articles...
Thailand PDPA Implementation Guide: Subordinate Regulations for 72-Hour Breach Reporting and Cross-Border Transfers (2022-2024 Rules)
Step-by-step Thailand PDPA guide: 72-hour breach notifications, cross-border transfers (2022-2024 rules). Risk checklists, GDPR templates avoid THB 5M fines. Mu
Singapore PDPA Implementation Guide: Mastering Part 6A Breach Notification Thresholds and Timelines from Primary Statute
Master Singapore PDPA Part 6A breach notifications: statutory thresholds (risk of significant harm), 72-hour timelines, checklists, templates & frameworks. Comp
The Tool Landscape for Reaching and Maintaining ISO 27701 Compliance
Discover the top tools for ISO 27701 compliance. Compare functionality, complexity, costs, and benefits to choose the best solution for your privacy program. Ac
Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM
Transform your compliance journey with our AI-powered assessment platform
Assess your organization's maturity across multiple standards and regulations including ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2, NIST, GDPR, and hundreds more. Get actionable insights and track your progress with collaborative, AI-powered evaluations.
Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages
ISO 45001 vs WELL
Compare ISO 45001 vs WELL: ISO 45001 drives OH&S systems for injury prevention; WELL optimizes building health via air, light & wellness. Uncover differences, synergies & strategies for peak workplace safety. Explore now!
ENERGY STAR vs GDPR UK
Explore ENERGY STAR vs GDPR UK: Compare US efficiency certification with UK data laws. Cut energy costs, ensure compliance, reduce risks—expert insights to optimize now! (152 characters)
NIST CSF vs C-TPAT
Explore NIST CSF vs C-TPAT: Cyber risk framework meets supply chain security. Uncover key differences, benefits & strategies for compliance. Secure your ops now!