Comparative Analysis of Cloud Audit Programs: AWS, Azure, GCP, and COBIT 2019 Integration

Cloud computing has rapidly established itself as the prevailing model for enterprise IT, with major providers such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform (GCP) leading global adoption. The cloud promises scalability, flexibility, and cost efficiency, but it also creates complex governance, risk, and compliance challenges due to shared infrastructure, multi-tenancy, and interdependent service layers. To guide assurance efforts, ISACA has issued dedicated audit frameworks: the AWS Audit Program (2019), the Azure Audit Program (2020), the GCP Audit Program (2023), and a broader Cloud Computing Audit Program (2016). These programs structure risk assessment and testing across domains such as governance, identity and access management, incident response, configuration management, logging, and business continuity. To integrate these audit practices with enterprise-level governance, the study employs the COBIT 2019 framework, ISACA’s globally recognized model for governing and managing information and technology. COBIT 2019 provides structured objectives and processes across governance, planning, implementation, service delivery, and monitoring that link IT controls directly to business goals, risk optimization, and value delivery. This study undertakes a comparative review of the cloud audit programs, aligning their focus areas with COBIT 2019’s governance and management objectives. The findings highlight distinct emphases: AWS concentrates on configuration and misconfiguration risks, Azure underscores continuity, shared responsibility, and service reliability, GCP emphasizes hierarchical structure, identity, and permission inheritance, and the general cloud computing program provides a broad governance foundation applicable across providers. Comparative analysis shows Azure exhibits the closest alignment with COBIT 2019, while AWS and GCP reveal gaps in governance integration. To address these gaps, the study proposes harmonization strategies involving cyber-risk quantification, structured risk registers, and continuous auditing. By linking technical audit domains to COBIT 2019’s governance objectives, the study reframes cloud audits from static, checklist-based exercises into dynamic governance mechanisms that foster compliance, risk optimization, and digital trust.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Engineering And Technology
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/volume07issue09-13
Primary Topic
Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Analysis of Cloud Audit Programs: AWS, Azure, GCP, and COBIT 2019 Integration

Yogesh S. Thanvi
The American Journal of Engineering And Technology
Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
article

Comparative Analysis of Cloud Audit Programs: AWS, Azure, GCP, and COBIT 2019 Integration

Yogesh S. Thanvi
article en

Abstract

Cloud computing has rapidly established itself as the prevailing model for enterprise IT, with major providers such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform (GCP) leading global adoption. The cloud promises scalability, flexibility, and cost efficiency, but it also creates complex governance, risk, and compliance challenges due to shared infrastructure, multi-tenancy, and interdependent service layers. To guide assurance efforts, ISACA has issued dedicated audit frameworks: the AWS Audit Program (2019), the Azure Audit Program (2020), the GCP Audit Program (2023), and a broader Cloud Computing Audit Program (2016). These programs structure risk assessment and testing across domains such as governance, identity and access management, incident response, configuration management, logging, and business continuity. To integrate these audit practices with enterprise-level governance, the study employs the COBIT 2019 framework, ISACA’s globally recognized model for governing and managing information and technology. COBIT 2019 provides structured objectives and processes across governance, planning, implementation, service delivery, and monitoring that link IT controls directly to business goals, risk optimization, and value delivery. This study undertakes a comparative review of the cloud audit programs, aligning their focus areas with COBIT 2019’s governance and management objectives. The findings highlight distinct emphases: AWS concentrates on configuration and misconfiguration risks, Azure underscores continuity, shared responsibility, and service reliability, GCP emphasizes hierarchical structure, identity, and permission inheritance, and the general cloud computing program provides a broad governance foundation applicable across providers. Comparative analysis shows Azure exhibits the closest alignment with COBIT 2019, while AWS and GCP reveal gaps in governance integration. To address these gaps, the study proposes harmonization strategies involving cyber-risk quantification, structured risk registers, and continuous auditing. By linking technical audit domains to COBIT 2019’s governance objectives, the study reframes cloud audits from static, checklist-based exercises into dynamic governance mechanisms that foster compliance, risk optimization, and digital trust.

The American Journal of Engineering And TechnologyVol. 07(09)
Engineering Software Research and Development (United States) (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.