What is the primary objective of **DORA**?

**The primary objective of DORA is to strengthen the digital operational resilience of the EU financial sector against ICT disruptions, including cyberattacks, system failures, and third-party risks.** Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 mandates proactive ICT risk management, incident reporting, resilience testing, and third-party oversight for 20 types of financial entities and critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs), applying fully from January 17, 2025.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **DORA**?

**DORA applies to approximately 22,000 EU-regulated financial entities across 20 types, including credit institutions, insurance undertakings, investment firms, payment institutions, and crypto-asset service providers, plus critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs).** Critical providers like cloud and data analytics firms face direct ESA oversight, with designations expected by end-2025.

Does **DORA** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**DORA does not mandate external audits or third-party certification but requires independent digital operational resilience testing, including annual basic tests and triennial threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) for critical entities.** Testing may involve external providers, with results reported to authorities and scopes validated per Batch 2 RTS (July 17, 2024).

How often should an assessment for **DORA** be performed?

**DORA requires annual basic ICT resilience tests for all in-scope entities and triennial advanced threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) for critical or designated entities.** ICT risk management frameworks must undergo annual reviews, with proportionality applied based on entity size, complexity, and risk exposure.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **DORA**?

**Non-compliance with DORA can result in administrative fines up to 2% of total global annual turnover for firms or €5 million (or 10% of annual salary) for individuals, imposed by ESAs or competent authorities.** Additional measures include remedial orders, public disclosures, and oversight fees up to €1 million annually for CTPPs.

Can **DORA** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, DORA's ICT risk management, incident reporting, testing, and third-party oversight elements can be mapped to other international frameworks, leveraging existing compliance for efficiency.** Financial entities often align DORA's proportional controls and reporting timelines with prior guidelines, though finance-specific mandates require tailored adaptations.

What is the first step to begin implementing **DORA**?

**The first step to implement DORA is to conduct a gap analysis against the ICT risk management framework RTS (Batch 1, January 17, 2024) to identify deficiencies in strategies, policies, and controls.** Prioritize mapping ICT dependencies, establishing management body oversight, and defining recovery time objectives (RTOs) below 4 hours for critical services ahead of the January 17, 2025 deadline.

What is the primary objective of **EU AI Act**?

**The primary objective of the EU AI Act is to ensure AI systems are safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory, and environmentally responsible through a risk-based framework.** Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, effective 1 August 2024, prohibits unacceptable-risk practices (Article 5), imposes strict obligations on high-risk systems (Annexes I/III, Articles 6-15), mandates transparency for limited-risk systems (Article 50), and regulates general-purpose AI models (Chapter V), balancing innovation with protection of health, safety, and fundamental rights.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **EU AI Act**?

**Providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and authorized representatives of AI systems used in or outputting to the EU must comply with the EU AI Act.** Providers develop or place high-risk systems on the market (Article 3(3)); deployers are professional users (Article 3(4)). Scope includes third-country entities if outputs are used in the EU (Article 2), covering high-risk uses in biometrics, employment, critical infrastructure (Annex III), and GPAI models exceeding systemic risk thresholds like 10^25 FLOPs (Article 55).

Does **EU AI Act** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**High-risk AI systems require conformity assessment, which may involve third-party notified bodies and external audits, but internal assessments suffice in some cases.** Article 43 mandates assessments per Annex VI (internal) or VII (third-party) for Annex III systems without full harmonized standards; notified bodies issue certificates (Article 44), enabling CE marking (Article 48) and EU database registration (Article 49). GPAI systemic-risk models face AI Office evaluations (Article 55).

How often should an assessment for **EU AI Act** be performed?

**Risk management assessments under the EU AI Act must be continuous throughout the AI system's lifecycle.** Article 9 requires a lifecycle risk management system for high-risk AI, with post-market monitoring (Article 72), serious incident reporting (Article 73), and updates for substantial modifications (Article 3(23)). Logs must be retained at least six months (Article 19), with full documentation for 10 years post-market (Article 18).

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **EU AI Act**?

**Non-compliance with the EU AI Act incurs tiered fines up to 7% of worldwide annual turnover or €40 million for prohibited practices.** Article 99 sets up to 7% (€40M) for Article 5 violations, 3% (€20M) for other Chapter III/IV/V breaches, and 1% (€10M) for remaining obligations; additional remedies include market withdrawal, bans, and personal liability.

Can **EU AI Act** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**No, the EU AI Act must stand alone and cannot be directly mapped to other frameworks in compliance demonstrations.** While it aligns with EU product safety laws (Annex I) and encourages harmonized standards (Article 40), obligations like conformity assessments (Article 43) and GPAI codes (Article 56) require specific evidence without presuming equivalence to non-EU regimes.

What is the first step to begin implementing **EU AI Act**?

**The first step for EU AI Act implementation is to inventory all AI systems and classify them by risk tier.** Map assets to prohibited practices (Article 5), high-risk Annex I/III (Article 6), GPAI (Chapter V), or transparency obligations (Article 50), documenting decisions for authorities (Article 6(4)).

DORA vs EU AI Act

Standards Comparison

DORA

Mandatory

2023

EU regulation for digital operational resilience in financial sector

EU AI Act

Mandatory

2024

EU regulation for risk-based AI governance

Quick Verdict

DORA mandates ICT resilience for EU financial entities against cyber threats, while EU AI Act regulates high-risk AI systems across sectors with conformity assessments. Financial firms adopt DORA for compliance; AI developers use AI Act to ensure safe market access and avoid massive fines.

Digital Operational Resilience

DORA

Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, Digital Operational Resilience Act

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

High

Implementation Time

18-24 months

Key Features

Mandates comprehensive ICT risk management frameworks
Requires 4-hour initial incident reporting for major events
Enforces risk-based resilience testing including triennial TLPT
Provides oversight of critical third-party ICT providers
Harmonizes rules across 27 EU member states

Artificial Intelligence

EU AI Act

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 Artificial Intelligence Act

Cost

€€€

Complexity

Medium

Implementation Time

18-24 months

Key Features

Risk-based classification into four tiers
Prohibits unacceptable-risk AI practices
High-risk conformity assessments and CE marking
GPAI model transparency and systemic risk duties
Post-market monitoring and incident reporting

Detailed Analysis

A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.

DORA Details

What It Is

Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), formally Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, is an EU-wide regulation enhancing digital operational resilience against ICT disruptions like cyberattacks in the financial sector. It applies to 20 financial entity types and critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs), using a proactive, risk-based approach to shift from reactive measures to technology-centric strategies.

Key Components

**ICT Risk Management FrameworksIdentification, mitigation, and annual reviews.
**Incident Reporting4-hour notifications, 72-hour updates for major incidents.
**Resilience TestingAnnual basic tests, triennial threat-led penetration testing (TLPT).
**Third-Party OversightDue diligence, monitoring, and ESAs supervision of CTPPs. Built on proportionality principles; no certification but mandatory compliance with RTS/ITS.

Why Organizations Use It

Mandated for EU financial entities to avoid 2% turnover fines; reduces systemic risks from threats like ransomware (74% affected); builds stakeholder trust; drives cybersecurity investments amid incidents like CrowdStrike outage.

Implementation Overview

Conduct gap analyses against 2024 RTS; develop frameworks, testing plans, vendor contracts. Applies to ~22,000 entities; tailored by size. Full application January 17, 2025; involves training, tools, audits. (178 words)

EU AI Act Details

What It Is

EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) is a comprehensive regulation establishing harmonized rules for AI across the EU. Its primary purpose is to ensure AI safety, transparency, and fundamental rights protection via a risk-based approach, prohibiting unacceptable risks, regulating high-risk systems, and imposing transparency for limited-risk AI.

Key Components

Risk tiers: prohibited practices, high-risk (Annex I/III), limited-risk transparency, minimal-risk.
Core requirements: risk management (Art. 9), data governance (Art. 10), documentation (Arts. 11-13), human oversight (Art. 14), cybersecurity (Art. 15).
GPAI obligations (Chapter V), conformity assessments, CE marking.
Built on product safety principles; compliance via self/third-party assessment.

Why Organizations Use It

Mandatory for EU market access, avoiding fines up to 7% global turnover.
Enhances risk management, trust, and competitiveness in sectors like employment, healthcare.
Builds stakeholder confidence through auditable governance.

Implementation Overview

Phased: prohibitions (6 months), GPAI (12 months), high-risk (24-36 months).
Inventory/classify AI, build RMS/QMS, conformity/CE marking, post-market monitoring.
Applies to providers/deployers EU-wide; audits by national authorities/AI Office.

Key Differences

Aspect	DORA	EU AI Act
Scope	Digital operational resilience in finance	Risk-based regulation of AI systems
Industry	EU financial sector and ICT providers	All sectors using AI, EU-wide extraterritorial
Nature	Mandatory EU regulation for finance	Mandatory EU regulation for AI
Testing	Annual basic, triennial TLPT for critical	Conformity assessments, post-market monitoring
Penalties	Up to 2% global turnover, €5M individuals	Up to 7% global turnover or €40M

Scope

DORA

Digital operational resilience in finance

EU AI Act

Risk-based regulation of AI systems

Industry

DORA

EU financial sector and ICT providers

EU AI Act

All sectors using AI, EU-wide extraterritorial

Nature

DORA

Mandatory EU regulation for finance

EU AI Act

Mandatory EU regulation for AI

Testing

DORA

Annual basic, triennial TLPT for critical

EU AI Act

Conformity assessments, post-market monitoring

Penalties

DORA

Up to 2% global turnover, €5M individuals

EU AI Act

Up to 7% global turnover or €40M

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about DORA and EU AI Act

DORA FAQ

EU AI Act FAQ

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

The Regulatory Radar: How Data-Driven Compliance Tools Provide Strategic Foresight

Unlock strategic foresight with data-driven compliance tools. Act as your regulatory radar: real-time monitoring, automated insights, and 3x cost cuts. Anticipa

CMMC Level 3 Implementation Guide: Integrating NIST SP 800-172 Enhanced Controls for APT Defense

Step-by-step CMMC Level 3 guide for DIB contractors. Implement 24 NIST SP 800-172 controls on Level 2. Prep for DIBCAC, C3PAO scoping & 180-day POA&Ms. Boost cy

NIST CSF 2.0 Supply Chain Risk Management: Complete Playbook with Profiles, Tiers, and Vendor Assessment Templates

Master NIST CSF 2.0 ID.SC supply chain risk management with vendor assessment templates, profile gap analysis, and tier strategies. Mitigate third-party threats

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.

100+ Standards & Regulations

AI-Powered Insights

Collaborative Assessments

Actionable Recommendations

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

IFS Food vs ISO 13485

Discover IFS Food vs ISO 13485: GFSI food audits vs med device QMS. Key scopes, annual audits, risks for compliance edge. Choose wisely—compare now!

COPPA vs ISO 26000

Unpack COPPA vs ISO 26000: Strict U.S. child privacy rules meet global SR guidance. Key diffs, compliance wins & fines—master both for apps/sites. Protect kids now!

NIST CSF vs ISO 26000

Decode NIST CSF vs ISO 26000: Cyber risk mastery meets social responsibility guidance. Compare flexibility, governance & benefits for resilient compliance. Choose yours now!

DORA

EU AI Act

Quick Verdict

DORA

Key Features

EU AI Act

Key Features

Detailed Analysis

DORA Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

EU AI Act Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

Key Differences

Scope

Industry

Nature

Testing

Penalties

Frequently Asked Questions

DORA FAQ

What is the primary objective of DORA?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with DORA?

Does DORA require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for DORA be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with DORA?

Can DORA be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing DORA?

EU AI Act FAQ

What is the primary objective of EU AI Act?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with EU AI Act?

Does EU AI Act require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for EU AI Act be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with EU AI Act?

Can EU AI Act be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing EU AI Act?

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

The Regulatory Radar: How Data-Driven Compliance Tools Provide Strategic Foresight

CMMC Level 3 Implementation Guide: Integrating NIST SP 800-172 Enhanced Controls for APT Defense

NIST CSF 2.0 Supply Chain Risk Management: Complete Playbook with Profiles, Tiers, and Vendor Assessment Templates

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

IFS Food vs ISO 13485

COPPA vs ISO 26000

NIST CSF vs ISO 26000