ISO/IEC 42001 and the HITRUST AI Security Assessment and Certification address AI risk from fundamentally different angles. While ISO/IEC 42001 defines how organizations govern AI, HITRUST provides assurance that AI security controls are implemented and tested, producing evidence-based confidence in the security of deployed AI systems.
AI adoption has accelerated faster than most security and risk programs can adapt. AI risk no longer stops at the enterprise perimeter. It now lives inside the software, platforms, and services organizations buy and rely on every day.
Vendors are racing to introduce AI features and back-office efficiencies, often faster than security teams can assess them. For third-party risk management (TPRM) teams, this creates a critical question: How do we know a vendor’s AI platform is secure?
That question drives direct comparisons between ISO/IEC 42001 and the HITRUST AI Security Assessment and Certification.
ISO/IEC 42001 demonstrates that an organization has implemented an AI governance and management structure. It shows that policies exist, responsibilities are defined, and AI-related activities are overseen through a formal management system.
For vendor risk programs, this can signal
ISO/IEC 42001 certification is based on whether the AI management system meets the standard’s requirements, but audits are typically risk-based and sample evidence rather than testing every possible control in depth. As a result, some listed controls may never be tested, even in certified environments.
In the market, ISO/IEC 42001 certifications may be issued by either accredited certification bodies (preferred) or non-accredited bodies. Accreditation improves consistency and trust, but buyers may not always be able to easily distinguish the rigor behind different certificates. This creates a market where assurance rigor varies significantly. TPRM teams cannot easily distinguish high-quality audits from low-quality ones.
Overall, ISO/IEC 42001 is not primarily designed as a technical security validation of a deployed AI system; it validates the organization’s AI management systems and governance processes, with security addressed through management-system controls rather than deep system testing. It answers how AI is managed — not how AI is protected.
The HITRUST AI Security Assessment and Certification addresses a different and increasingly urgent problem: proving that deployed AI systems are secure.
HITRUST focuses on
Rather than evaluating governance maturity, HITRUST validates whether security controls are implemented, tested, and effective in operational AI environments. Every applicable HITRUST AI security control must be implemented and tested for certification. There is no selective control adoption or selective testing. This delivers defensible, evidence-based AI security assurance.
|
Category |
HITRUST AI Security Assessment and Certification |
ISO/IEC 42001 |
|
Purpose |
AI security assurance: proves AI systems are secured through validated controls |
AI governance framework: establishes an AI Management System (AIMS) |
|
Framework type |
Prescriptive security assurance framework purpose-built for AI risk |
Management system framework focused on governance, policy, and oversight |
|
What is assessed |
Deployed AI systems and the security controls protecting them |
Organizational AI management processes and controls |
|
Governance vs. security |
Security-first with measurable, testable outcomes |
Governance-first; security depth is limited by design |
|
Control rigor |
AI-specific, prescriptive controls mapped to threats and tailored by deployment scenario |
Largely non-prescriptive, principle-based requirements extending far beyond security |
|
Assurance strength |
Independent testing, centralized QA, and HITRUST certification |
Management-system certification, selective testing; assurance varies by certification body |
|
Best-fit for |
Proving AI systems are secure, internally and across vendors |
Establishing enterprise-wide AI governance and accountability |
Governance maturity does not equal security assurance.
Two organizations may both hold ISO/IEC 42001 certifications while operating AI systems with vastly different security postures. Because the standard is principle-based, security depth depends heavily on interpretation and implementation.
For TPRM teams, this creates
When AI is embedded in third-party products, this lack of standardization leaves material security risk unmeasured.
HITRUST AI Security Certification was developed through extensive industry collaboration to address this exact gap. It enables scalable trust across vendor ecosystems by providing
The outcome is proof that AI systems are protected.
For most organizations, the answer is not one or the other. It is understanding their distinct roles.
When AI is operational, customer-facing, or embedded in third-party products, governance alone is not enough.
In our upcoming blog, we’ll explore why this creates a critical blind spot in third-party risk management and why validated AI security assurance is becoming essential for managing AI risk at scale.