SOC 2 vs. ISO 42001: Which AI Compliance Framework Is Right for You?

If your organization is looking for an avenue to demonstrate accountability and trust surrounding the use of artificial intelligence (AI), SOC 2 and ISO 42001 are two key compliance frameworks to consider.

While SOC 2 has long been a go-to option for organizations to demonstrate their cybersecurity posture, ISO 42001 offers an AI-specific standard designed to help organizations responsibly fulfill their role with respect to AI systems. Understanding the purpose, scope, and benefits of each framework can help your organization determine which is the best fit to meet your goals.

What is SOC 2?

SOC 2 is a scalable framework designed to help organizations show they’re committed to establishing sound risk management practices.

By undergoing a SOC 2 examination, organizations gain an independent, third-party assessment of their operational controls based on one or more of the five trust services criteria (TSC) outlined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). These criteria include:

Security (required for all SOC 2 reports): The system is protected against unauthorized access, both physical and logical.
Availability: The system is available for operation and use as committed or agreed.
Processing Integrity: System processing is complete, valid, accurate, timely, and authorized to meet the entity’s objectives.
Confidentiality: Information designated as confidential is protected as committed or agreed.
Privacy: Personal information is collected, used, retained, disclosed, and disposed of to meet the entity’s objectives.

A SOC 2 report provides a CPA’s opinion on the design and effectiveness of your controls related to the selected TSC, either at a single point in time (for a SOC 2 Type 1 report) or over a period of time (for a SOC 2 Type 2 report).

While SOC 2 audits do not result in a formal certification, the resulting report provides a widely accepted avenue for organizations to demonstrate their commitment to data security best practices.

How Does SOC 2 Apply to AI Systems?

Because the SOC 2 framework is flexible and customizable, the scope of your SOC 2 examination can be tailored to include your AI systems and processes.

For example, your SOC 2 audit could include controls related to:

Secure data handling and access management for AI training data;
Change management for AI model updates;
Monitoring of automated decision systems; and,
Incident response processes for AI-related failures or misuse.

While SOC 2 reports have been widely adopted across North America as a strong baseline for communicating about your cybersecurity posture with internal and external stakeholders, AI-powered organizations with more complex systems or that operate outside North America may need to achieve certification against a more rigorous compliance standard, such as ISO 42001.

What is ISO 42001?

For organizations aiming to demonstrate that they are effectively and responsibly managing AI, ISO 42001 offers a smart solution. The standard mandates numerous controls for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an organization’s AI management system (AIMS). ISO 42001 is intended for use by organizations that produce, provide, or use products or services that utilize AI systems.

The requirements to achieve ISO 42001 certification are divided into 10 clauses, each focusing on a specific area of AI risk management, from leadership and planning to support and operation. The standard includes controls surrounding things like:

Establishing an AI policy;
Formalizing an AI system impact assessment process;
Assigning accountability for AI-related decision-making;
Identifying and addressing risks such as AI/security vulnerabilities and algorithmic bias;
Ensuring that AI systems are safely and transparently developed, deployed, and monitored; and,
Integrating the AIMS with the organization’s processes.

For organizations that already adhere to standards like ISO 27001, which focuses on information security, or ISO 27701, which focuses on privacy, ISO 42001 is a natural next step that creates a more comprehensive and cohesive compliance program to address a broad spectrum of modern risks and ensure that AI systems are governed with the same rigor as other critical business systems.

Similar to frameworks like ISO 27001, not all controls included in ISO 42001 are mandatory. Organizations must determine which controls are applicable based on their specific AI risk landscape.

Which Framework is the Best Fit for Your Organization?

Choosing between SOC 2 and ISO 42001 depends on your organization’s maturity, market presence, and the role AI plays in your operations.

If your organization operates primarily in North America and aims to demonstrate robust data security and operational controls, SOC 2 may be the right choice for you. Obtaining a SOC 2 report requires less effort than an ISO 42001 certification, and can be a good first step on your compliance journey.

However, if AI plays a central role in your business strategy, product offerings, or decision-making processes, and you need a globally recognized framework to prove that your AI systems are safe, transparent, and trustworthy, then ISO 42001 is likely a better option.

In many cases, organizations benefit from pursuing both frameworks. SOC 2 offers strong foundational assurance surrounding cybersecurity and data management, while ISO 42001 builds on that foundation to address the unique risks posed by AI.

For businesses that serve international markets or operate complex AI environments, achieving both attestations can also provide a significant competitive advantage—enhancing credibility, streamlining audits, and strengthening trust with customers, partners, and stakeholders.

The Bottom Line

Both SOC 2 and ISO 42001 help organizations demonstrate their commitment to data security and responsible risk management. SOC 2 remains the go-to framework for verifying operational security and data protection controls, while ISO 42001 introduces the structure and rigor needed to manage the ethical and operational challenges of AI technology.