What is the primary objective of **SOC 2**?

**The primary objective of SOC 2 is to provide independent assurance that a service organization's controls meet the Trust Services Criteria (TSC) for security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy.** Developed by the AICPA, SOC 2 evaluates systems handling customer data, with Security (CC1-CC9) as the mandatory common criteria. Type 2 reports assess design and operating effectiveness over 3-12 months, delivering stakeholder trust via CPA-attested reports.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **SOC 2**?

**No organization is legally required to comply with SOC 2, as it is a voluntary AICPA framework, but service organizations like SaaS, cloud, and data processors face professional mandates from enterprise clients.** Targeted at providers storing, processing, or transmitting customer data, it is demanded in RFPs, MSAs, and vendor risk assessments by Fortune 500 buyers, especially for deals exceeding $5K ACV.

Does **SOC 2** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**Yes, SOC 2 requires an external audit by an independent, AICPA-accredited CPA firm to issue Type 1 or Type 2 attestation reports.** Type 1 verifies control design at a point in time; Type 2 tests operating effectiveness over a minimum 3-month period, including sampling of evidence like logs, access reviews, and penetration tests. No formal certification exists—reports provide the assurance.

How often should an assessment for **SOC 2** be performed?

**SOC 2 Type 2 assessments should be performed annually to capture a full monitoring period and maintain ongoing assurance.** Bridge letters from management can extend validity up to 3 months between audits. Continuous monitoring, including quarterly access reviews and annual penetration tests, supports recertification with a bridged period of prior 9 months plus new 3 months.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **SOC 2**?

**Non-compliance with client-mandated SOC 2 results in deal disqualification, extended sales cycles by 3-6 months, and increased CAC by 20-50%.** Absent reports trigger exhaustive VRM scrutiny, custom contracts, or lost revenue; breach liability rises under SLAs/CCPA, with damages potentially exceeding $1M per incident and reputational harm delaying funding.

An **SOC 2** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, SOC 2 controls map significantly to frameworks like ISO 27001 (80% overlap), NIST CSF, and others via AICPA spreadsheets.** Common Criteria (CC1-CC9) align with ISO Annex A controls, enabling reuse for multi-compliance without dual audits. This reduces redundancy for global SaaS pursuing GDPR or HIPAA alignments.

What is the first step to begin implementing **SOC 2**?

**The first step to implement SOC 2 is a scoping exercise and gap analysis against the Trust Services Criteria, engaging a CPA for readiness assessment.** Define in-scope systems, data flows, and TSC (starting with mandatory Security), inventory assets, and map 50-100 controls, prioritizing quick wins like policies and IAM.

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

**The primary objective of the EU AI Act is to establish a risk-based regulatory framework that prohibits unacceptable-risk AI practices, imposes strict obligations on high-risk AI systems, mandates transparency for limited-risk systems, and fosters trustworthy AI while protecting health, safety, and fundamental rights.** Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, effective 1 August 2024, classifies AI into four tiers per Articles 5–6 and Annexes I/III, requiring providers and deployers to ensure lifecycle compliance via risk management (Article 9), data governance (Article 10), and conformity assessments (Article 43).

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

**Providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and authorized representatives are legally required to comply with the EU AI Act when placing AI systems on the EU market or using their outputs in the EU, including third-country entities.** Providers develop or market systems under their name (Article 3(3)); deployers are professional users (Article 3(4)). High-risk obligations apply to Annex I/III systems in sectors like biometrics, employment, and critical infrastructure (Article 6); GPAI providers face Chapter V duties (Articles 51–56).

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

**The EU AI Act requires third-party conformity assessment by notified bodies for certain high-risk AI systems, but allows internal assessments for others.** Per Article 43 and Annexes VI–VII, Annex III systems (e.g., biometrics) often need notified body involvement (Articles 28–39); Annex I systems follow existing product rules. Successful assessment enables EU Declaration of Conformity (Article 47) and CE marking (Article 48), with ongoing post-market audits (Article 72).

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

**Assessments for the EU AI Act must be performed before placing high-risk systems on the market, after substantial modifications, and continuously via post-market monitoring.** Initial conformity assessment (Article 43) precedes market entry; risk management (Article 9) and monitoring (Article 72) are lifecycle-continuous. Logs must be retained at least six months (Article 19); serious incidents reported without delay (Article 73).

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

**Non-compliance with the EU AI Act incurs tiered administrative fines up to 7% of worldwide annual turnover or €40 million for prohibited practices, 3% or €30 million for high-risk obligations, and 2% or €10 million for others.** Enforcement by national authorities (Article 70) and AI Office (Article 64) includes market withdrawal, bans, and personal liability; GPAI violations attract Article 101 fines.

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

**No, the EU AI Act cannot be directly mapped to other international frameworks in this FAQ, as it must stand alone.** Its unique risk-based structure (prohibited/high-risk/GPAI per Articles 5–6, 51–55) and conformity regime (Articles 40–49) require specific implementation without cross-references here.

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

**The first step to implement the EU AI Act is to conduct an AI inventory and risk classification to identify prohibited practices (Article 5), high-risk systems (Article 6, Annexes I/III), and GPAI models (Chapter V).** Map systems, roles, and obligations immediately, prioritizing cessation of bans by February 2025.

SOC 2 vs EU AI Act

Standards Comparison

SOC 2

Voluntary

2010

AICPA framework for service organizations' Trust Services Criteria

EU AI Act

Mandatory

2024

EU regulation for risk-based AI governance and safety

Quick Verdict

SOC 2 provides voluntary trust services audits for service organizations globally, proving data security controls. EU AI Act mandates risk-based compliance for AI systems in EU, requiring conformity assessments. Companies adopt SOC 2 for enterprise sales; AI Act to access EU markets legally.

Cybersecurity / Trust

SOC 2

System and Organization Controls 2

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

High

Implementation Time

6-12 months

Key Features

Trust Services Criteria with mandatory Security (CC1-CC9)
Type 2 audits prove operating effectiveness over time
Independent AICPA CPA firm attestation
Flexible scoping for service organizations
High overlap with ISO 27001 and GDPR

Artificial Intelligence

EU AI Act

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 Artificial Intelligence Act

Cost

€€€

Complexity

Medium

Implementation Time

18-24 months

Key Features

Risk-based four-tier AI classification framework
Prohibitions on unacceptable-risk AI practices
High-risk conformity assessment and CE marking
GPAI models systemic risk obligations
Post-market monitoring and incident reporting

Detailed Analysis

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

SOC 2 Details

What It Is

SOC 2 (System and Organization Controls 2) is a voluntary framework developed by the AICPA for service organizations handling customer data. It provides independent assurance via Trust Services Criteria (TSC) evaluating security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. Uses a risk-based, control-focused approach with Type 1 (design) and Type 2 (operating effectiveness) reports.

Key Components

Five **TSCSecurity (mandatory, CC1-CC9), Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy
50-100+ controls mapped to criteria
Built on COSO principles with points of focus
CPA-attested reports aiming for unqualified opinions

Why Organizations Use It

Streamlines enterprise sales and vendor due diligence
Voluntary yet market-driven for SaaS/cloud providers
Reduces breach risks, liabilities, and CAC
Builds competitive moats, investor confidence
Enhances stakeholder trust and reputation

Implementation Overview

Phased: scoping, gap analysis, remediation, monitoring, audit
Involves policies, IAM, logging, evidence automation
Suits all sizes, especially tech/SaaS globally
Requires annual Type 2 CPA audits (3-12 months period)

EU AI Act Details

What It Is

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the EU AI Act, is a comprehensive horizontal regulation establishing the first risk-based framework for AI systems across sectors. Its primary purpose is to ensure AI safety, transparency, and fundamental rights protection while fostering innovation. The approach tiers AI by risk: unacceptable (prohibited), high-risk (strict controls), limited-risk (transparency), and minimal-risk (voluntary).

Key Components

Prohibited practices (Article 5), high-risk obligations (Articles 9-15: risk management, data governance, documentation, oversight, cybersecurity).
GPAI model rules (Chapter V), conformity assessments, CE marking, EU database registration.
Built on product-safety principles; up to 7% global turnover fines.
Compliance via self-assessment or notified bodies.

Why Organizations Use It

Mandated for EU market access; mitigates legal risks, enhances trust, enables procurement in high-stakes sectors like healthcare, finance. Builds resilient AI governance, competitive edge via certified safety.

Implementation Overview

Phased rollout (6-36 months); inventory/classify AI, build RMS/QMS, document, assess conformity. Applies to providers/deployers globally if EU-impacting; cross-functional, audit-heavy for high-risk.

Key Differences

Aspect	SOC 2	EU AI Act
Scope	Trust Services Criteria: security, availability, confidentiality, privacy, processing integrity	Risk-based AI regulation: prohibited practices, high-risk systems, GPAI, transparency
Industry	Service organizations (SaaS, cloud, fintech) globally	AI providers/deployers in EU across sectors (health, finance, employment)
Nature	Voluntary AICPA audit framework	Mandatory EU regulation with fines
Testing	Type 2 audits over 3-12 months by CPA firms	Conformity assessments, notified bodies for high-risk
Penalties	No legal fines; market exclusion, reputational damage	Up to 7% global turnover or €40M fines

Scope

SOC 2

Trust Services Criteria: security, availability, confidentiality, privacy, processing integrity

EU AI Act

Risk-based AI regulation: prohibited practices, high-risk systems, GPAI, transparency

Industry

SOC 2

Service organizations (SaaS, cloud, fintech) globally

EU AI Act

AI providers/deployers in EU across sectors (health, finance, employment)

Nature

SOC 2

Voluntary AICPA audit framework

EU AI Act

Mandatory EU regulation with fines

Testing

SOC 2

Type 2 audits over 3-12 months by CPA firms

EU AI Act

Conformity assessments, notified bodies for high-risk

Penalties

SOC 2

No legal fines; market exclusion, reputational damage

EU AI Act

Up to 7% global turnover or €40M fines

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about SOC 2 and EU AI Act

SOC 2 FAQ

EU AI Act FAQ

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

Top 10 NIST CSF 2.0 Myths Busted: Separating Hype from Reality for Smarter Adoption

Bust 10 NIST CSF 2.0 myths like 'only for critical infrastructure' or 'Govern replaces Identify'. Plain-English breakdowns, evidence, and fixes for flexible ris

The Reasons Why NIS2 is Fundamental for Cyber Resilience in Europe

Uncover why NIS2 transcends compliance burdens, delivering real cyber resilience value through enforced measurements and activities. Explore insights via our pa

TISAX Tabletop Exercises for EV Battery Suppliers: Ransomware Drill Scripts and AAR Templates with 2025 ENX Podcast Breakdown

Practical TISAX tabletop scripts for EV battery suppliers facing 'Very High' ASLP. Download ransomware AAR templates, get 2024 ENX lessons & 2025 podcast on VDA

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

ITIL vs UL Certification

ITIL vs UL Certification: ITSM best practices (ITIL 4's 34 practices, SVS) vs product safety testing (UL Listed/Recognized marks). Align IT or certify gear—choose now!

LEED vs NERC CIP

Discover LEED vs NERC CIP: Green building certification meets grid cybersecurity standards. Unlock strategies, pitfalls, implementation frameworks, and ROI for resilient energy ops. Dive in!

K-PIPA vs FISMA

Discover K-PIPA vs FISMA: South Korea's consent-centric privacy powerhouse vs US federal risk-based cybersecurity. Key diffs in CPOs, 72h breaches, 3% fines. Master compliance now!

SOC 2

EU AI Act

Quick Verdict

SOC 2

Key Features

EU AI Act

Key Features

Detailed Analysis

SOC 2 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

SOC 2 FAQ

What is the primary objective of SOC 2?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with SOC 2?

Does SOC 2 require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for SOC 2 be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with SOC 2?

An SOC 2 be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing SOC 2?

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...

Top 10 NIST CSF 2.0 Myths Busted: Separating Hype from Reality for Smarter Adoption

The Reasons Why NIS2 is Fundamental for Cyber Resilience in Europe

TISAX Tabletop Exercises for EV Battery Suppliers: Ransomware Drill Scripts and AAR Templates with 2025 ENX Podcast Breakdown

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

ITIL vs UL Certification

LEED vs NERC CIP

K-PIPA vs FISMA