EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation vs MTCS (Singapore)
What is the difference between EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and MTCS (Singapore)?
EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation is a information security framework applying in the European Union, with 34 controls across 3 domains. MTCS (Singapore) is a other framework applying in Singapore, with 147 controls across 21 domains. They govern different subjects, so the overlap is limited to the governance requirements they share. The mapping below shows where that is.
EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation34 controls
MTCS (Singapore)147 controls
Questions people ask about EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and MTCS (Singapore)
What is the difference between EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and MTCS (Singapore)?
EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation has 34 controls while MTCS (Singapore) has 147 controls. Both frameworks address compliance requirements but differ in scope, focus, and applicability. Use our platform to explore the exact control-to-control mappings.
Do I need both EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and MTCS (Singapore)?
Whether you need both depends on your industry, regulatory requirements, and customer expectations. Many organizations implement multiple frameworks simultaneously. Our compliance platform helps you map controls between EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and MTCS (Singapore) so you can identify shared requirements and avoid duplicate effort.
How do EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and MTCS (Singapore) controls map to each other?
Our platform maps controls between EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and MTCS (Singapore) at a granular level. Each mapping shows whether controls are fully aligned, partially aligned, or represent gaps. This helps you prioritize implementation when pursuing both frameworks.
Which framework should I implement first, EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation or MTCS (Singapore)?
The best starting point depends on your specific regulatory requirements, industry, and customer demands. Consider which framework is most urgently required by your stakeholders or regulators. Use our free compliance platform to run a gap analysis and determine the optimal implementation sequence.
Each framework on its own
Comparisons people read next
Each of these compares one of the two standards above against another it shares controls with.
EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation vs South Korea ISMS-P9 shared controlsEASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation vs NRF Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Framework (National Retail Federation)8 shared controlsEASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation vs NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security8 shared controlsMTCS (Singapore) vs South Korea ISMS-P7 shared controlsMTCS (Singapore) vs ISO 270187 shared controlsMTCS (Singapore) vs ISO 270177 shared controls
See all control mappings with interactive gap analysis
Explore the complete mapping between EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation and MTCS (Singapore) on our compliance platform.
Written and maintained by Gerard Blokdyk, The Art of Service.