Standards Comparison

    EU AI Act

    Mandatory
    2024

    EU regulation for risk-based AI safety and governance

    VS

    APRA CPS 234

    Mandatory
    2019

    Australian prudential standard for information security resilience.

    Quick Verdict

    EU AI Act regulates AI systems risk-based across EU sectors with conformity and fines, while APRA CPS 234 mandates information security capability for Australian financial entities via testing and notifications. Organizations adopt for compliance, market access, and resilience.

    Artificial Intelligence

    EU AI Act

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on Artificial Intelligence

    Cost
    €€€€
    Complexity
    Medium
    Implementation Time
    18-24 months

    Key Features

    • Risk-based four-tier classification framework
    • Outright prohibitions on unacceptable AI practices
    • Conformity assessments and CE marking for high-risk systems
    • Dedicated obligations for systemic-risk GPAI models
    • Extraterritorial scope for non-EU providers and deployers
    Information Security

    APRA CPS 234

    APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 Information Security

    Cost
    €€€€
    Complexity
    High
    Implementation Time
    12-18 months

    Key Features

    • Board ultimate responsibility for information security
    • 72-hour APRA notification for material incidents
    • Systematic risk-based testing of controls
    • Third-party capability and control assessments
    • Asset classification by criticality and sensitivity

    Detailed Analysis

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

    EU AI Act Details

    What It Is

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the EU AI Act, is a comprehensive horizontal regulation establishing a risk-based framework for AI systems. It prohibits unacceptable-risk practices, regulates high-risk systems via lifecycle controls, mandates transparency for limited-risk AI, and leaves minimal-risk unregulated. Scope covers providers, deployers, and third-country entities using outputs in the EU.

    Key Components

    • **Four risk tiersprohibited, high-risk (Annex I/III), limited-risk, minimal-risk.
    • High-risk obligations: risk management (Article 9), data governance (Article 10), documentation (Articles 11-13), human oversight (Article 14), cybersecurity (Article 15).
    • GPAI rules (Chapter V), conformity assessments, CE marking, EU database registration.
    • Hybrid enforcement: AI Office, national authorities, fines up to 7% global turnover.

    Why Organizations Use It

    Mandatory compliance ensures EU market access, mitigates fines and bans. Enhances trust, reduces risks in high-stakes sectors like employment and biometrics. Builds competitive edge via certified safety and transparency.

    Implementation Overview

    Phased rollout (6-36 months). Inventory AI assets, classify risks, build QMS, conduct assessments. Applies to all sizes targeting EU; requires audits, post-market monitoring. Cross-functional: legal, engineering, governance.

    APRA CPS 234 Details

    What It Is

    APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 (Information Security) is a binding regulation issued by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Effective from 1 July 2019, it mandates APRA-regulated entities like banks, insurers, and super funds to maintain information security capabilities commensurate with threats to protect confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information assets, including those managed by third parties. It adopts a risk-based, assurance-driven approach focused on governance, controls, and resilience.

    Key Components

    • 11 core requirements spanning governance, asset classification, controls, testing, incident response, and APRA notifications.
    • Pillars include Board accountability, systematic testing, internal audit assurance, and 72-hour incident reporting.
    • Built on CIA triad principles with commensurability to risks; no fixed controls but evidence-based compliance.

    Why Organizations Use It

    • Mandatory for APRA-regulated entities to avoid penalties, enforcement, and reputational damage.
    • Enhances cyber resilience, stakeholder trust, and operational continuity.
    • Provides competitive edge through robust third-party oversight and incident readiness.

    Implementation Overview

    • Phased approach: gap analysis, policy frameworks, asset inventories, testing programs.
    • Applies to all sizes in Australian financial sector; requires independent audits, no formal certification. (178 words)

    Key Differences

    Scope

    EU AI Act
    AI systems risk-based regulation across lifecycle
    APRA CPS 234
    Information security for financial assets CIA

    Industry

    EU AI Act
    All sectors EU-wide horizontal applicability
    APRA CPS 234
    Australian financial services only

    Nature

    EU AI Act
    Mandatory EU regulation with fines
    APRA CPS 234
    Mandatory prudential standard enforcement

    Testing

    EU AI Act
    Conformity assessments notified bodies
    APRA CPS 234
    Systematic independent control testing

    Penalties

    EU AI Act
    Up to 7% global turnover fines
    APRA CPS 234
    Supervisory actions remediation orders

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Common questions about EU AI Act and APRA CPS 234

    EU AI Act FAQ

    APRA CPS 234 FAQ

    You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

    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