NIST SP 800-218 SSDF v1.1 organizes secure-development practices into Prepare the Organization, Protect the Software, Produce Well-Secured Software and Respond to Vulnerabilities. NIST also published SP 800-218 Rev. 1, SSDF v1.2, as an initial public draft on December 17, 2025; do not describe that draft as final.

Why it matters

SSDF is a secure-development framework that can support supplier assurance. OMB M-26-05, issued January 23, 2026, rescinded M-22-18 and M-23-16 and adopted agency risk-based software and hardware assurance. Agencies may still request attestations or contract-specific evidence. Do not describe SSDF as a proven superset of IEC 81001-5-1 without a clause-level comparison.

Common pitfalls

•Adopting SSDF in name only, the framework expects measurable practices with evidence (e.g., PW.4 'Reuse Existing, Well-Secured Software When Feasible' requires component selection criteria and provenance records).
•Conflating SSDF with SPDF, SPDF is FDA's umbrella term; SSDF is one specific framework that can satisfy an SPDF requirement.
•Forgetting RV (Respond to Vulnerabilities), many manufacturers' SSDF programs are strong on development but weak on post-market response.

Sources

NIST SP 800-218: SSDF v1.1 · NIST
HSCC - Health Sector Coordinating Council · HSCC
CISA - Healthcare and Public Health Sector · CISA
NIST SSDF 1.2 initial draft · NIST
OMB M-26-05 · OMB
FDA final guidance, February 3, 2026 · FDA

Open full page

Select term B to compare.

Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

Common comparison patterns

Regulatory pathway choice - 510(k) vs PMA, 510(k) vs De Novo, Abbreviated vs Special 510(k).
Quality systems - QSR vs ISO 13485, QMSR vs QSR.
Software classification - SaMD vs SiMD, Locked vs adaptive AI.
EU frameworks - MDR vs IVDR, CE Mark vs UKCA.
Cybersecurity artifacts - SPDX vs CycloneDX SBOM, CVE vs CVSS.
Post-market actions - Recall vs field action, Removal vs correction.

How to use this tool

Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.