SOC 2 Equivalent by Country: Global Standards Compared (2026)

Executive Summary: SOC 2 Equivalent by Country at a Glance

A prospect in Frankfurt replies to your security pack with one line: "Do you have the local equivalent of SOC 2?" Nobody on your team knows what that means.

There is no official list of countries that "recognize" SOC 2. SOC 2 is a US attestation from the AICPA. Abroad, the equivalent is an assurance engagement under the local version of ISAE 3000, such as CSAE 3000 in Canada or ASAE 3000 in Australia. Whether a buyer accepts it is the buyer's call. This guide maps the SOC 2 equivalent by country so you can answer that prospect with confidence.

One boundary up front. This article is about where a SOC 2 holds up and what replaces it abroad. For the differences between report types, see our guide to SOC 1 vs SOC 2 vs SOC 3. For the SSAE 18 history, see SSAE 18 vs SOC 2. For choosing between frameworks, see ISO 27001 vs SOC 2.

By the end, you will know the right report for each market and how to reply to a buyer in one email.

Here's what's ahead:

• What the international equivalent of SOC 2 actually is
• How ISAE 3000 and ISAE 3402 line up with SOC 2 and SOC 1
• Whether SOC 2 is recognized internationally, with a country-by-country table
• The local versions in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific
• When a national cloud scheme is not a SOC 2 equivalent
• A practical guide to answering the buyer's request

What Is the International Equivalent of SOC 2?

SOC 2 is an examination of a service organization's controls against the Trust Services Criteria, performed by a CPA firm under AICPA attestation standards (AT-C sections 105 and 205). It is an attestation report, not a certification, as we explain in Is SOC 2 a certification?.

So the question "which countries recognize SOC 2?" is really a different question: which assurance standard would a local auditor use to do the same work? The answer is an ISAE-based engagement, and the details change by country.

There is no single international equivalent, and the reason is structural. The ISAE standards come from the IAASB, the standard-setting board under IFAC, and they describe how to run an assurance engagement. They contain no control framework. The report still needs named criteria, and the Trust Services Criteria often fill that role, according to Dutch assurance firm Kiwa.

ISAE 3000 vs SOC 2 and ISAE 3402 vs SOC 1: The Two Standards Behind Every Local Version

Two international standards sit behind nearly every local version, and each pairs with one US report.

ISAE 3000 (Revised) covers assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical financial information. It is the usual basis for a SOC 2-style report on security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality or privacy. Linford & Company notes that a SOC 2 assessment may be performed under ISAE 3000.

ISAE 3402 covers controls at a service organization that are likely relevant to user entities' internal control over financial reporting. The IAASB made it effective for reports covering periods ending on or after 15 June 2011. That makes it the counterpart to SOC 1.

Two practical points follow from the table.

First, a US CPA firm cannot perform only an ISAE 3402 assessment. Linford & Company explains that AICPA requirements apply alongside it, and that a single examination can cover both the AICPA and IAASB standards. One engagement can therefore produce a report that serves a US buyer and a European one.

Second, read a request carefully. If a buyer writes "SOC 2 with ISAE 3402", ask which one they mean. SOC 1 and ISAE 3402 pair naturally, and SOC 2 pairs with ISAE 3000. For the SOC 1 side in detail, see SSAE 18 vs SOC 2.

Is SOC 2 Recognized Internationally? Which Countries Accept SOC 2

SOC 2 is widely requested and never legally mandated outside specific regulated sectors. "Accepted" means a buyer decided to accept it.

What the sources support is this. Moore Kingston Smith, a UK accountancy, writes that ISAE reports are accepted in Europe, Asia-Pacific and other markets. It adds that the choice between ISAE and SOC reports "generally depends on jurisdiction, licensing and client preference rather than on assurance quality." That is a statement about preference, not about law.

For many non-US buyers, the first ask is ISO 27001, not SOC 2. A SOC 2 report still carries weight when you sell to US customers. If you are weighing the two, our SOC 2 to ISO 27001 mapping shows how one set of controls supports both.

SOC 2 Equivalent by Country: The Comparison Table

Here is the SOC 2 equivalent by country in one view, as of October 2026. Where we could not confirm a standard from a primary or professional-body source, the cell says so.

SOC 2 Equivalent by Country in North America: The US and CSAE 3000 in Canada

In the United States, SOC 2 is the standard. It runs under AICPA standards against the Trust Services Criteria, and it is voluntary. Enterprise procurement drives demand, not a statute.

Canada has no separate SOC 2 standard. BC CPA states that "Canadian standards currently do not specifically include reports similar to SOC 2 or SOC 3," and that an engagement under CSAE 3000 could still achieve similar results. That is the Canadian answer to a SOC 2 request: a CSAE 3000 engagement.

The SOC 1 counterpart is CSAE 3416. BC CPA says it supplements CSAE 3000 and does not replace it. Centrilogic, a Canadian provider, describes ISAE 3402 as the international version of the same report and CSAE 3416 as the Canadian one.

In practice, Canadian providers often hold both reports side by side. Centrilogic announced SOC 1 Type 2 and SOC 2 Type 2 alongside ISAE 3402 and CSAE 3416 attestations.

SOC 2 Equivalent by Country in Europe: What SOC 2 in Europe Really Means

Europe has no single SOC 2 equivalent. Each country has its own assurance standards and, in some cases, its own cloud scheme.

SOC 2 in Europe matters most when you sell to US customers or when a European buyer is used to reading US-style reports. For a European buyer's first ask, ISO 27001 is common, so plan for both rather than treating them as rivals.

UK Equivalent of SOC 2: ISAE 3000 and ICAEW's TECH 01/20 AAF

The ICAEW converges with IAASB standards through its IFAC membership, so SOC 2-style work in the UK is an ISAE 3000 engagement.

ICAEW's TECH 01/20 AAF is its guidance on internal controls of organisations that provide outsourced services to user entities. ICAEW says it could also be applied to other activities where suitable control objectives can be identified. It is effective for reporting periods beginning on or after 1 July 2020, and the earlier TECH 01/06 AAF was withdrawn on 30 June 2020.

No UK law requires SOC 2. A UK buyer may name TECH 01/20 AAF, ISAE 3402 or ISO 27001 instead, so ask which one.

SOC 2 Equivalent by Country: Germany (IDW PS 860, IDW PS 951 and C5)

Germany has the most layered set of options.

• IDW PS 951 n.F. is the German counterpart to ISAE 3402. Rödl & Partner describes IDW PS 951 and ISAE 3402 as an international counterpart pair, and both offer a test of design and a test of operating effectiveness.
• IDW PS 860 is the German standard that BDO Germany lists alongside ISAE 3000. Confirm with your auditor how it applies to your report.
• BSI C5 is the Federal Office for Information Security's catalogue of minimum requirements for secure cloud computing. It is a criteria catalogue, not a substitute for a SOC 2 report.

The sharpest example is healthcare. Under the C5GleichwV rule for cloud services in German healthcare (§ 393 SGB V), ISO/IEC 27001, ISO 27001 on IT-Grundschutz and CCM v4.0 count as equivalent to a C5 attestation, with an action plan attached. SOC 2 is not on that list.

SOC 2 Equivalent by Country: France (SecNumCloud)

France's SecNumCloud is ANSSI's requirements framework for qualified cloud providers (version 3.2, 8 March 2022). It adds criteria on protection against non-European law, and it is a qualification, not an attestation equivalent to SOC 2.

SOC 2 Equivalent by Country in Asia-Pacific: ASAE 3000 in Australia and Beyond

A prospect in Sydney or Singapore may ask for the same thing in different words. The reply depends on the standard-setter behind the market.

ASAE 3000 is the AUASB's overarching standard for assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical financial information. ASAE 3402 supplements it for controls at a service organisation, and the AUASB reissued ASAE 3402 on 6 September 2022, operative from 15 December 2022.

SOC 2 Equivalent by Country: Australia (ASAE 3000, ASAE 3150 and the Consumer Data Right)

An ASAE 3000 engagement is the Australian counterpart to ISAE 3000. The AUASB pages do not mention SOC 2, so treat it as a counterpart and not an endorsement.

The Consumer Data Right is where it gets specific. RSM Australia says non-ADI applicants provide a Type I reasonable assurance report under ASAE 3150 (Assurance Engagements on Controls), or accepted comparable standards identified by the ACCC. Sensiba states that ISO/IEC 27001 certification alone does not meet CDR accreditation requirements. Point your buyer to the ACCC's supplementary guidelines to see what counts.

SOC 2 Equivalent by Country: Singapore, Japan and India

Three markets, three different instruments. None of them is a SOC 2 acceptance rule.

• Singapore: MTCS SS 584 is a multi-tier cloud security standard, certified by accredited third-party certification bodies, according to an IMDA factsheet.
• Japan: ISMAP is the government's system for evaluating and registering cloud services in advance of procurement. ISMAP-LIU is a lighter track within it for SaaS handling low-risk, confidentiality class-2 information, according to the Digital Agency.
• India: ICAI issues SAE 3402 as its counterpart to ISAE 3402. For a SOC 2-style report, confirm the route with your auditor.

Each is a separate instrument. We make no claim about SOC 2 acceptance in any of them.

When a Local Cloud Scheme Is Not a SOC 2 Equivalent

A buyer who names a scheme usually wants that scheme. Three different kinds of document get lumped together, so separate them first.

A SOC 2 report rarely stands in for a scheme, because the scheme has its own rules. When a buyer names C5 or SecNumCloud, the real answer is a mapping exercise and a gap analysis, not a SOC 2 report with a cover note.

The crosswalk approach is the same one we use for frameworks. Our SOC 2 to ISO 27001 mapping shows it step by step.

Which SOC 2 Equivalent by Country Does Your Buyer Mean? A Practical Guide

A Hacker News commenter who says they have sat "in the approval seat" at big corporations wrote in September 2024 that "you can't really tell which ones your clients are going to ask for in what order." So start with the buyer's own words.

Then work through the steps:

1. Confirm the criteria. Which criteria, standard or scheme does the buyer name?
2. Confirm Type 1 or Type 2. Type 2 tests operating effectiveness over a period.
3. Ask about a bridge letter. If your report is a few months old, a bridge letter may cover the gap.
4. Check for a combined engagement. One engagement under two standards can be cheaper than two reports.

Once you send the report, the buyer will read it closely. Our guide to how to review a SOC 2 report shows what they look for.

Common Mistakes With SOC 2 Equivalent by Country Requests

These are easy to get wrong:

• Treating ISAE 3402 as a SOC 2 substitute. It is the SOC 1 counterpart, aimed at financial-reporting controls.
• Promising a "SOC 2 for Germany". German buyers may mean C5, IDW PS 951 or ISO 27001, and each is different.
• Assuming ISO 27001 satisfies a C5 or CDR requirement. It counts under C5GleichwV for German healthcare, but Sensiba says it alone does not meet CDR requirements.
• Quoting vendor "required in country X" claims to a buyer. If the source is a marketing page, it is not evidence.
• Ordering two engagements when one would do. A combined engagement under both standards can serve both buyers.
• Letting the auditor choose criteria the buyer never asked for. Get the buyer's criteria in writing first.

A different Hacker News commenter wrote in November 2021 that "we did eventually have to get ISO27001, SOC2 and ISAE3402," and that waiting for real customer demand gave the best sequencing. That is a reminder to answer today's request, not every request you can imagine.

How ComplyJet Fits When Buyers Ask for a SOC 2 Equivalent

ComplyJet is a compliance automation platform, not an audit firm. The attestation report is issued by an independent auditor under whichever standard your buyer needs.

What we cover is the readiness work behind it. We support SOC 2 and ISO 27001 on one control set, so evidence you collect once serves a US SOC 2 buyer and a European ISO 27001 buyer. See our ISO 27001 framework page and the SOC 2 compliance guide for how that works.

FAQs

Is There an International Equivalent of SOC 2?

There is no single one. SOC 2 maps to an assurance engagement under ISAE 3000, and national versions such as CSAE 3000 in Canada and ASAE 3000 in Australia do the same job locally. The report still needs named criteria, and the Trust Services Criteria often fill that role.

Which Countries Recognize SOC 2?

No official list exists. SOC 2 is a US AICPA attestation, and "recognition" means a buyer chose to accept it. ISAE-based reports are accepted in Europe and Asia-Pacific, according to Moore Kingston Smith, but the choice depends on jurisdiction, licensing and client preference.

Is SOC 2 Accepted Outside the US?

Often, yes, but never automatically. Many buyers outside the US accept a SOC 2 report, and some name a local scheme or ISO 27001 instead. Ask the buyer which standard they need before you send anything.

Is ISAE 3000 the Same as SOC 2?

No, but they pair. ISAE 3000 is an IAASB standard for assurance engagements, and it is the usual basis for SOC 2-style work outside the US. SOC 2 is the AICPA report with the Trust Services Criteria built in.

Is ISAE 3402 Equivalent to SOC 2?

No. ISAE 3402 is the counterpart to SOC 1 and covers controls relevant to financial reporting. If a buyer asks for ISAE 3402, they usually want SOC 1-style assurance, not a SOC 2 report.

Do I Need SOC 2 in Europe?

Not by law. If you sell to US customers, a SOC 2 report helps. For European buyers, ISO 27001 is a common first ask, and some name national schemes such as C5. Many companies end up holding more than one.

Is ISO 27001 Equivalent to SOC 2?

They overlap but are different documents. SOC 2 is an auditor's attestation and ISO 27001 is a certification. Some buyers accept one in place of the other and some do not. Our guide to ISO 27001 vs SOC 2 covers how to choose.

Does Germany Accept SOC 2?

Some German buyers accept it, and some name a German route instead, such as IDW PS 951, ISO 27001 or BSI C5. In German healthcare cloud rules, SOC 2 is not on the list that counts as equivalent to a C5 attestation. Ask the buyer which one the contract names.

Related Reading

• SSAE 18 vs SOC 2: SSAE 18 history and the ISAE 3402 vs SOC 1 comparison
• SOC 1 vs SOC 2 vs SOC 3: report-type differences
• ISO 27001 vs SOC 2: choosing between the two
• SOC 2 to ISO 27001 mapping: the control crosswalk
• How to review a SOC 2 report: what buyers look for in the report
• SOC 2 compliance guide: the full SOC 2 process