IATF 16949
Global standard for automotive quality management systems
APRA CPS 234
Australian prudential standard for information security resilience
Quick Verdict
IATF 16949 drives automotive quality via core tools and certification; APRA CPS 234 mandates financial cyber resilience with board accountability. Automotive suppliers pursue IATF for OEM access; Australian banks/insurers adopt CPS 234 to avoid regulatory penalties.
IATF 16949
IATF 16949:2016 Automotive Quality Management Systems
Key Features
- Mandates core tools: APQP, FMEA, PPAP, MSA, SPC
- Top management must manage, not delegate, quality
- Risk-based planning with operational data analysis
- Robust supplier monitoring and second-party audits
- Product safety processes and warranty management
APRA CPS 234
APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 Information Security
Key Features
- Board ultimate responsibility for information security
- 72-hour APRA notification for material incidents
- Systematic independent 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.
IATF 16949 Details
What It Is
IATF 16949:2016 is an international certification standard for quality management systems (QMS) in automotive production and service parts. Built on ISO 9001:2015, it adds sector-specific requirements for defect prevention, variation reduction, and supply chain consistency using a risk-based, process-oriented approach aligned with PDCA.
Key Components
- Clauses 4–10 mirroring ISO 9001, plus automotive supplements.
- Mandatory **core toolsAPQP, FMEA, Control Plans, MSA, SPC, PPAP.
- Focus on product safety, supplier management, CSRs, and leadership accountability.
- Certification via IATF-approved bodies with staged audits.
Why Organizations Use It
- Meets OEM contractual demands for supply chain access.
- Reduces warranty costs, recalls, and COPQ through prevention.
- Enhances competitiveness, stakeholder trust, and operational efficiency.
- Drives continual improvement and risk mitigation.
Implementation Overview
- Phased: gap analysis, core tool deployment, training, audits.
- Applies to automotive sites, remote supports, suppliers.
- Timelines 6–36 months; requires leadership commitment, digital tools.
APRA CPS 234 Details
What It Is
APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 (Information Security) is a mandatory prudential regulation issued by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority for regulated financial entities. Effective 1 July 2019, it requires maintaining information security capabilities commensurate with threats and vulnerabilities to minimize impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) of information assets, including those managed by third parties. It employs a risk-based, assurance-driven model emphasizing governance, testing, and rapid notification.
Key Components
Core elements include board ultimate responsibility (para 13), defined roles (para 14), asset classification by criticality/sensitivity (para 20), commensurate controls across asset lifecycles (para 21), incident response plans with annual testing (paras 23-26), systematic independent testing (paras 27-31), internal audit assurance (paras 32-34), and APRA notifications (72 hours for material incidents, 10 business days for weaknesses). No fixed control count; proportional to risk, aligned with CIA principles.
Why Organizations Use It
Driven by legal obligations under banking/insurance acts to avoid penalties and supervision. Enhances cyber resilience, operational continuity, third-party risk management, and prudential outcomes. Builds customer trust, reduces incident impacts, and supports competitive positioning in financial services.
Implementation Overview
Phased approach: gap analysis, governance/policy setup, asset inventory/classification, control deployment, testing/assurance programs, ongoing monitoring. Applies to APRA-regulated entities (banks, insurers, super funds) regardless of size; requires demonstrable evidence via internal audits, no external certification but subject to APRA supervision.
Key Differences
| Aspect | IATF 16949 | APRA CPS 234 |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Automotive QMS with core tools, supplier management | Information security governance, cyber resilience |
| Industry | Global automotive supply chain | Australian financial services sector |
| Nature | Voluntary certification standard | Mandatory prudential regulation |
| Testing | Internal audits, core tool validation | Systematic independent control testing |
| Penalties | Loss of certification, OEM exclusion | Regulatory sanctions, fines, enforcement |
Scope
Industry
Nature
Testing
Penalties
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about IATF 16949 and APRA CPS 234
IATF 16949 FAQ
APRA CPS 234 FAQ
You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

The CIS Controls v8.1 Evidence Pack: What Auditors Ask For (and How to Produce Proof Fast)
Fail CIS Controls v8.1 audits due to missing evidence? Get the blueprint: exact artifacts auditors want, repository structure, and automation from security tool

ISO 27701 Implementation Roadmap: Extending Your ISMS to PIMS in 12 Months or Less
Extend ISO 27001 ISMS to ISO 27701 PIMS in 12 months with our phased roadmap. Templates, checklists & infographics for RoPA, DSARs & audit-ready privacy complia

Top 10 Reasons CMMC Level 3 Certification Unlocks Competitive Edge for Primes Handling Critical DoD Programs
Discover top 10 reasons CMMC Level 3 certification unlocks competitive edge for DoD primes. Reduced APT risks, procurement prefs, NIST 800-172 compliance via v2
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
PMBOK vs ISO 17025
Discover PMBOK vs ISO 17025: Contrast project mgmt principles with lab competence standards. Key diffs in tailoring, processes & compliance boost regulated project success. Optimize now!
COBIT vs ISO 27018
Compare COBIT vs ISO 27018: ISACA's enterprise IT governance powerhouse vs cloud PII privacy code. Tailor risk, value & compliance—discover the best fit now!
ISO 27032 vs Basel III
Compare ISO 27032 vs Basel III: Cybersecurity guidelines meet banking capital rules. Uncover compliance strategies, risks, and frameworks for resilient digital and financial ops. Dive in now!