Top 10 Zero Trust Network Access ZTNA: Features, Pros, Cons & Comparison

Top Tools
Posted on | by rajeshkumar

Introduction (100–200 words)

Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) is a modern way to securely connect users and devices to private apps (data center, cloud, SaaS admin portals, internal APIs) without putting them “on the network.” Instead of extending a full VPN tunnel, ZTNA grants per-app, per-session access based on identity, device posture, and policy—then continuously re-checks trust during the session.

It matters even more in 2026+ because workforces are hybrid, apps are distributed across multiple clouds, endpoints are more varied, and attackers increasingly target identity and session tokens rather than perimeter firewalls. ZTNA is also becoming a core building block of SSE/SASE programs alongside secure web gateway (SWG), CASB, and DLP.

Common use cases include:

  • Replacing legacy VPN for employees and contractors
  • Secure access to cloud VMs and internal web apps
  • Third-party/vendor access with least privilege
  • M&A integration and rapid segmentation by identity
  • Developer access to internal tools and environments

What buyers should evaluate (6–10 criteria):

  • App coverage: web apps, SSH/RDP, private APIs, legacy protocols
  • Identity integration: SSO, MFA, conditional access, device identity
  • Device posture checks (MDM/EDR signals, certificates, OS version)
  • Policy model: least privilege, app segmentation, just-in-time access
  • Performance: global edge presence, routing, latency, resiliency
  • Security controls: continuous verification, session controls, audit logs
  • Deployment fit: cloud-only vs hybrid, connector model, high availability
  • Admin UX: onboarding, policy authoring, visibility, troubleshooting
  • Ecosystem: SIEM/SOAR, EDR/XDR, IAM/IdP, ITSM integrations
  • Total cost: licensing model, add-ons (SWG/DLP), operational overhead

Mandatory paragraph

Best for: IT/security teams at SMB to enterprise who need to modernize remote access, reduce lateral movement risk, and enforce identity- and device-aware access to private apps—especially in regulated industries, SaaS-heavy environments, and multi-cloud organizations.

Not ideal for: teams that only need simple site-to-site connectivity, have no identity provider (IdP) maturity, or primarily require full network-layer access for niche workflows (some OT/IoT, complex legacy protocols). In those cases, modern VPN, SD-WAN segmentation, or privileged access management (PAM) may be better starting points.

Key Trends in Zero Trust Network Access ZTNA for 2026 and Beyond

  • ZTNA converges into SSE/SASE platforms: Buyers increasingly prefer consolidated policy, logging, and licensing across ZTNA + SWG + CASB + DLP rather than point products.
  • “ZTNA 2.0” and continuous authorization: More products are moving beyond one-time authentication to continuous risk evaluation (device health, user behavior, session anomalies).
  • Identity becomes the primary control plane: Deeper integration with IdPs, device identity, certificates, and conditional access policies—often with shared signals across IAM and security tools.
  • AI-assisted policy and troubleshooting: Expect practical AI features like policy simulation, misconfiguration detection, recommended least-privilege rules, and faster root-cause analysis for access failures.
  • Browser-based isolation and secure app access: More secure access flows happen through managed browsers or isolation modes to reduce endpoint risk without blocking productivity.
  • Stronger device posture signals: Increased reliance on MDM/EDR signals, hardware-backed identity, and compliance state to prevent unmanaged devices from accessing sensitive apps.
  • API-first and automation-friendly deployments: Terraform-style automation, CI/CD-friendly connector rollout, and policy-as-code are becoming common expectations.
  • Better support for non-web protocols: Growing focus on SSH/RDP/database access with strong session controls and auditability—not just web apps.
  • Data-centric security integration: ZTNA increasingly ties into DLP and data classification so access and data handling are enforced together.
  • Simplified licensing expectations: Customers push back on complicated add-ons; vendors respond with bundles, usage-based models, or clearer packaging (varies by vendor).

How We Selected These Tools (Methodology)

  • Focused on widely recognized ZTNA offerings with meaningful adoption across SMB, mid-market, and enterprise.
  • Prioritized tools with strong private-app access controls (not just VPN alternatives) and proven architectures (connector-based access, least privilege).
  • Considered feature completeness: identity/device posture, app segmentation, protocol support, logging, and admin experience.
  • Looked for credible reliability/performance signals, such as global presence, high availability options, and operational maturity.
  • Evaluated security posture signals: continuous verification concepts, policy granularity, auditability, and integration with broader security stacks.
  • Weighted products that integrate well with common enterprise ecosystems (IdPs, SIEM, EDR/XDR, MDM, ITSM).
  • Included a balanced mix of platform suites and simpler ZTNA-first products to match different team sizes and complexity.
  • Favored tools that align with 2026+ implementation patterns: SSE/SASE convergence, automation readiness, and hybrid/multi-cloud reality.

Top 10 Zero Trust Network Access ZTNA Tools

#1 — Zscaler Private Access (ZPA)

Short description (2–3 lines): ZPA is an enterprise-focused ZTNA solution designed to replace VPN by providing identity- and policy-based access to private applications. It’s commonly adopted by large organizations standardizing on an SSE/SASE approach.

Key Features

  • App-level access to private applications without exposing inbound access
  • Policy based on user identity and context (varies by deployment design)
  • Connector-based architecture for private app publishing
  • Segmentation to reduce lateral movement compared with broad VPN access
  • Centralized admin and visibility for access activity and policy outcomes
  • Integration alignment with broader SSE controls (where deployed)
  • High-level support for distributed workforce use cases

Pros

  • Strong fit for large-scale VPN replacement programs
  • Mature enterprise operational model and policy structure
  • Works well when paired with a broader SSE strategy

Cons

  • Can be complex to design and roll out at enterprise scale
  • Best results often require strong IdP/device posture foundations
  • Packaging and add-ons vary by customer context

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / macOS / Linux / iOS / Android
Cloud

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A (depends on configuration and integrations)
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Designed to integrate with enterprise identity and security ecosystems so access policy can align with user, device, and risk signals across tools.

  • IdPs (SAML/OIDC) such as Okta, Microsoft, Google (varies by setup)
  • Endpoint security signals (EDR/XDR) (varies)
  • SIEM platforms for centralized logging (varies)
  • ITSM workflows (varies)
  • APIs/automation capabilities: Varies / Not publicly stated

Support & Community

Enterprise support offerings and documentation are generally expected at this tier; community footprint is smaller than developer-first tools. Support tiers and onboarding options vary by contract.

#2 — Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access (ZTNA capabilities)

Short description (2–3 lines): Prisma Access is a cloud-delivered security platform that includes ZTNA-style private app access as part of a broader SSE/SASE portfolio. It’s typically chosen by enterprises standardizing network and security controls under one vendor.

Key Features

  • Private application access as part of a broader SSE/SASE architecture
  • Identity-aware policy enforcement (depends on integrated identity stack)
  • Option to unify access controls with other security inspection services
  • Distributed access model to support hybrid workforces
  • Centralized management and visibility (varies by modules licensed)
  • Segmentation concepts to limit lateral movement beyond VPN
  • Alignment with enterprise firewall/security operations workflows

Pros

  • Attractive for organizations already standardized on Palo Alto ecosystems
  • Consolidation benefits when bundling multiple SSE/SASE capabilities
  • Suitable for complex enterprise requirements

Cons

  • Implementation can be heavier than ZTNA-only offerings
  • Total cost can increase as modules/features are added
  • Best outcomes may require strong operational maturity

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / macOS / Linux / iOS / Android
Cloud

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Often used in environments where network security, identity, and endpoint signals are centralized, enabling policy decisions based on shared telemetry.

  • Common IdP integrations (SAML/OIDC) (varies)
  • SIEM integration for logs/alerts (varies)
  • Endpoint security ecosystem integrations (varies)
  • Automation and APIs: Varies / Not publicly stated
  • Compatibility with enterprise networking patterns (varies)

Support & Community

Enterprise-grade support and professional services are commonly available; exact tiers vary. Community resources exist but are typically less plug-and-play than smaller ZTNA vendors.

#3 — Cloudflare Zero Trust (ZTNA via Access)

Short description (2–3 lines): Cloudflare’s Zero Trust suite includes ZTNA capabilities that control access to internal applications through identity-aware policies. It’s popular with teams that value fast rollout, global edge presence, and a unified approach to secure access.

Key Features

  • Identity-aware access policies for internal web applications
  • Support for protecting internal tools without opening inbound firewall ports (architecture-dependent)
  • Device posture and context-based rules (capabilities vary by plan/config)
  • Global edge network for consistent performance (varies by region/route)
  • Centralized access logs and policy evaluation visibility
  • Options to extend controls across web traffic and DNS (if adopted)
  • Practical onboarding for SMB to enterprise, depending on scope

Pros

  • Fast time-to-value for many internal app access use cases
  • Strong fit for internet-facing teams and cloud-native environments
  • Consolidates multiple access/security controls under one console (when used broadly)

Cons

  • Advanced enterprise requirements may need careful architecture planning
  • Non-web protocols and niche legacy flows can require more design work
  • Feature availability can depend on plan and configuration

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / macOS / Linux / iOS / Android
Cloud

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Integrates with common identity providers and security workflows, especially where teams want policy decisions tied closely to identity and device context.

  • SAML/OIDC IdPs (varies by provider)
  • SIEM ingestion for access logs (varies)
  • MDM/endpoint posture sources (varies)
  • APIs/automation: Varies / Not publicly stated
  • Developer/admin tooling integrations (varies)

Support & Community

Documentation is generally strong for implementation paths; support tiers vary by plan. Community knowledge is broad due to the product’s mindshare across developer and IT audiences.

#4 — Netskope Private Access

Short description (2–3 lines): Netskope provides ZTNA for private app access, commonly positioned within an SSE platform alongside CASB/DLP. It’s often chosen by organizations that want tight alignment between access controls and data security.

Key Features

  • Private app access with identity-aware policy controls
  • Strong alignment with data security controls (when using broader platform)
  • Context-based policies (user, device, risk signals) depending on integrations
  • Visibility into access activity and policy decisions
  • Support for distributed users and hybrid environments
  • Centralized management across SSE capabilities (if deployed)
  • Segmentation principles to reduce lateral movement

Pros

  • Good option for organizations prioritizing data security + access together
  • Strong fit for regulated environments when paired with DLP practices
  • Suitable for mid-market to enterprise consolidation efforts

Cons

  • Can be more platform-heavy than ZTNA-first tools
  • Value is highest when adopting multiple Netskope components
  • Migration planning may be non-trivial for large app portfolios

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / macOS / Linux / iOS / Android
Cloud

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Commonly deployed where identity, endpoint, and data protection signals need to converge to drive consistent access policy.

  • IdP integrations (SAML/OIDC) (varies)
  • SIEM integrations (varies)
  • Endpoint/MDM posture integrations (varies)
  • DLP/CASB ecosystem alignment (platform-dependent)
  • APIs/automation: Varies / Not publicly stated

Support & Community

Enterprise support and onboarding assistance are typical; exact levels depend on contract. Community is more enterprise-focused than open-community driven.

#5 — Cisco Secure Access (ZTNA capabilities)

Short description (2–3 lines): Cisco’s secure access portfolio includes ZTNA-style controls to provide identity-based access to private applications as part of a broader security service edge approach. It’s often considered by organizations with existing Cisco investments and networking/security operations.

Key Features

  • Private application access with identity-aware policies
  • Tight alignment with enterprise networking/security operational models
  • Centralized management and access visibility (depending on modules)
  • Integrations with common enterprise identity systems (varies)
  • Device trust/context signals can be incorporated (varies by environment)
  • Scalable approach for hybrid workforce connectivity
  • Works well when consolidating access alongside other edge security controls

Pros

  • Attractive for organizations already using Cisco across identity/network/security
  • Good fit for large distributed environments
  • Can simplify vendor management when consolidating edge security

Cons

  • Product landscape can feel complex depending on licensing and components
  • Full value may require adopting multiple Cisco elements
  • Implementation can be heavier than lightweight ZTNA-only tools

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / macOS / Linux / iOS / Android
Cloud

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Best suited to environments that already rely on enterprise identity and network tooling and want access policy tied into broader security operations.

  • IdP integrations (SAML/OIDC) (varies)
  • SIEM/SOAR logging pipelines (varies)
  • Endpoint posture integrations (varies)
  • Networking/security stack integrations (varies)
  • APIs/automation: Varies / Not publicly stated

Support & Community

Strong enterprise support options are typical; documentation breadth is usually good but can be multi-product. Community resources are present, often tied to broader Cisco ecosystems.

#6 — Fortinet ZTNA (FortiClient / FortiSASE / FortiGate-aligned)

Short description (2–3 lines): Fortinet offers ZTNA capabilities across its endpoint client and security platform ecosystem, often paired with Fortinet networking/security infrastructure. It’s commonly selected by organizations that want ZTNA aligned with firewall/segmentation strategies.

Key Features

  • ZTNA access enforced via endpoint client and policy (architecture-dependent)
  • Integration with broader Fortinet security stack for unified policy (when adopted)
  • Device posture evaluation options (varies by deployment)
  • Access controls that can align with network segmentation strategies
  • Centralized logging and visibility through Fortinet management tooling (varies)
  • Support for hybrid environments with on-prem and cloud apps
  • Scalable approach for branch/distributed networks (design-dependent)

Pros

  • Strong fit for Fortinet-standardized environments
  • Useful when combining ZTNA with segmentation and firewall policy
  • Flexible deployment patterns for hybrid networks

Cons

  • Can require endpoint client management discipline for best results
  • Architecture options may be confusing without clear reference design
  • Some capabilities may depend on which Fortinet components you own

Platforms / Deployment

Windows / macOS (client-dependent) / Web (admin) / iOS / Android (varies)
Cloud / Hybrid

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Most compelling when used as part of a broader Fortinet environment, enabling shared telemetry and consistent enforcement across endpoints and security controls.

  • IdP integrations (varies)
  • SIEM integrations (varies)
  • Endpoint/MDM posture sources (varies)
  • Fortinet ecosystem integrations (platform-native)
  • APIs/automation: Varies / Not publicly stated

Support & Community

Enterprise support is available; documentation is extensive but can be product-suite wide. Community is active, especially among network/security practitioners.

#7 — Microsoft Entra Private Access

Short description (2–3 lines): Microsoft Entra Private Access is a ZTNA solution aligned with Microsoft identity and conditional access patterns. It’s a common shortlist item for organizations standardizing identity, device compliance, and access governance within the Microsoft ecosystem.

Key Features

  • Identity-driven private app access aligned to Entra identity controls
  • Conditional access style policies (capabilities depend on tenant configuration)
  • Designed to work with device compliance signals (varies by setup)
  • Centralized access visibility aligned with identity admin workflows
  • Helps reduce reliance on legacy VPN for many app access scenarios
  • Supports modern access patterns for hybrid identity environments
  • Policy consistency when Microsoft identity is the control plane

Pros

  • Natural fit for Microsoft-centric organizations (identity + endpoint management)
  • Simplifies alignment between ZTNA and conditional access policies
  • Strong option when identity governance is a priority

Cons

  • Best experience is typically within Microsoft’s identity/device stack
  • Some advanced network/security features may require additional components
  • Migration for complex legacy apps may take planning

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / macOS / iOS / Android (varies by access method)
Cloud

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Most valuable when connected to Microsoft identity, endpoint, and security tooling so policy and signals remain consistent across access decisions.

  • Entra ID integrations (native)
  • MDM/device compliance sources (varies)
  • SIEM integration (varies)
  • APIs/automation: Varies / Not publicly stated
  • Third-party IdP/EDR integrations: Varies / N/A

Support & Community

Strong documentation and broad community mindshare around Microsoft identity patterns. Support tiers vary by licensing and enterprise agreements.

#8 — Google BeyondCorp Enterprise

Short description (2–3 lines): BeyondCorp Enterprise brings Google’s zero trust concepts to private app access with identity- and context-aware policy. It’s often considered by organizations already invested in Google Cloud and Google-centric identity workflows.

Key Features

  • Identity- and context-aware access to internal applications
  • Policy-driven approach aligned to zero trust principles
  • Works well for web-based internal tools and modern app stacks (design-dependent)
  • Central admin and visibility (varies by configuration)
  • Can support distributed workforces without traditional VPN models
  • Integrates with Google ecosystem identity/context signals (varies)
  • Supports gradual migration from legacy access patterns

Pros

  • Good fit for Google Cloud–aligned environments
  • Strong conceptual alignment with zero trust architectures
  • Useful for modern web app access patterns

Cons

  • Non-web protocols and legacy app access can require additional planning
  • Ecosystem fit is best when Google identity/context signals are primary
  • Packaging and feature availability can vary

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / macOS / Linux (varies) / iOS / Android (varies)
Cloud

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Typically integrates best where Google identity, device context, and cloud operations are already part of daily workflows.

  • Google identity/context integrations (platform-native)
  • SAML/OIDC federation patterns (varies)
  • SIEM export/logging pipelines (varies)
  • APIs/automation: Varies / Not publicly stated
  • Cloud operations tooling alignment (varies)

Support & Community

Documentation is generally solid; community support is strongest among Google Cloud practitioners. Enterprise support varies by contract.

#9 — Akamai Enterprise Application Access (EAA)

Short description (2–3 lines): Akamai EAA provides ZTNA-style access to private applications, often leveraging Akamai’s global presence and enterprise delivery/security background. It’s commonly used for securing internal apps for employees and third parties without exposing them to the public internet.

Key Features

  • Application-level access controls for private apps
  • Connector-based access model (deployment-dependent)
  • Identity-aware policies to reduce broad network access
  • Global scale characteristics (varies by region and routing)
  • Centralized access logging and audit support (varies)
  • Supports third-party access patterns with least privilege concepts
  • Helps reduce dependency on inbound firewall exposure for apps

Pros

  • Strong option for global organizations with distributed users
  • Good fit for securing internal web apps and portals
  • Mature vendor profile for enterprise delivery and access needs

Cons

  • Can be less intuitive for smaller teams without dedicated security ops
  • Advanced posture/risk integrations vary by environment
  • Some protocol use cases may need careful design

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / macOS (client/agentless options vary) / iOS / Android (varies)
Cloud / Hybrid

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Often used alongside enterprise identity systems and logging pipelines to ensure access events are visible and governed like other security controls.

  • SAML/OIDC IdPs (varies)
  • SIEM integrations for access logs (varies)
  • MFA providers (varies)
  • APIs/automation: Varies / Not publicly stated
  • Enterprise proxy/network tooling coexistence (varies)

Support & Community

Enterprise support is typical; onboarding can be guided through documentation and services. Community is present but more enterprise-centric than grassroots.

#10 — Twingate

Short description (2–3 lines): Twingate is a ZTNA-first product focused on simplifying secure access to private resources for modern teams. It’s commonly adopted by SMBs and mid-market teams looking for a practical VPN replacement with straightforward administration.

Key Features

  • Resource-level access to internal services without broad network tunneling
  • Lightweight connector model to publish private resources (design-dependent)
  • Identity-based access policies and group-based authorization
  • Device-aware controls (capabilities vary by client configuration)
  • User-friendly admin experience geared toward fast rollout
  • Works well for contractor and temporary access patterns
  • Visibility into who accessed what resource and when (varies)

Pros

  • Straightforward setup compared with many enterprise suites
  • Strong fit for distributed teams without heavy network engineering
  • Clearer “least privilege by resource” mental model than VPN

Cons

  • May not meet all enterprise suite requirements by itself
  • Advanced DLP/SWG consolidation typically requires other tools
  • Some legacy/complex protocol scenarios may need extra planning

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / macOS / Linux / iOS / Android
Cloud

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, encryption, audit logs, RBAC: Varies / N/A
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Integrates with common identity providers and team workflows, with an emphasis on quick operational adoption rather than large-suite consolidation.

  • IdPs (SAML/OIDC) (varies)
  • Directory sync/group mapping (varies)
  • SIEM/log export patterns (varies)
  • APIs/automation: Varies / Not publicly stated
  • MDM/endpoint posture signals: Varies / N/A

Support & Community

Typically strong documentation for self-serve onboarding; support tiers vary by plan. Community presence is solid among SMB/mid-market practitioners.

Comparison Table (Top 10)

Tool Name Best For Platform(s) Supported Deployment (Cloud/Self-hosted/Hybrid) Standout Feature Public Rating
Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) Enterprise VPN replacement at scale Web, Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android Cloud Mature enterprise ZTNA as part of SSE N/A
Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access Enterprise SSE/SASE consolidation Web, Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android Cloud Integrated security platform approach N/A
Cloudflare Zero Trust (Access) Fast rollout + global edge + unified controls Web, Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android Cloud Edge-delivered access with strong admin UX N/A
Netskope Private Access ZTNA tightly aligned to data security Web, Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android Cloud Access + data protection alignment (platform) N/A
Cisco Secure Access Cisco-centric enterprise secure access Web, Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android Cloud Fits large enterprise networking/security ops N/A
Fortinet ZTNA Fortinet ecosystem (endpoint + firewall alignment) Windows, macOS, Web, iOS, Android (varies) Cloud/Hybrid ZTNA integrated with segmentation/firewall strategy N/A
Microsoft Entra Private Access Microsoft identity-driven ZTNA Web, Windows, macOS, iOS, Android (varies) Cloud Strong conditional access alignment N/A
Google BeyondCorp Enterprise Google Cloud / Google identity environments Web, Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android (varies) Cloud Context-aware access rooted in BeyondCorp model N/A
Akamai Enterprise Application Access (EAA) Global orgs securing internal web apps Web, Windows, macOS, iOS, Android (varies) Cloud/Hybrid Enterprise-grade access with global scale N/A
Twingate SMB/mid-market ZTNA-first VPN replacement Web, Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android Cloud Simple resource-level least-privilege access N/A

Evaluation & Scoring of Zero Trust Network Access ZTNA

Scoring model: Each tool is scored 1–10 per criterion, then converted into a weighted total (0–10) using the weights below.

Weights

  • Core features – 25%
  • Ease of use – 15%
  • Integrations & ecosystem – 15%
  • Security & compliance – 10%
  • Performance & reliability – 10%
  • Support & community – 10%
  • Price / value – 15%
Tool Name Core (25%) Ease (15%) Integrations (15%) Security (10%) Performance (10%) Support (10%) Value (15%) Weighted Total (0–10)
Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) 9 7 8 8 9 8 6 7.95
Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access 9 6 8 8 8 8 6 7.65
Cloudflare Zero Trust (Access) 8 8 7 7 8 7 8 7.70
Netskope Private Access 8 6 8 8 8 7 6 7.25
Cisco Secure Access 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 7.35
Fortinet ZTNA 8 6 7 7 8 7 7 7.10
Microsoft Entra Private Access 7 7 8 7 7 8 7 7.25
Google BeyondCorp Enterprise 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 6.65
Akamai EAA 7 6 7 7 8 7 6 6.85
Twingate 7 9 6 7 7 7 8 7.35

How to interpret these scores:

  • The scores are comparative, not absolute—tools cluster closely because several are strong in different ways.
  • “Core” favors protocol coverage, policy depth, segmentation, and operational controls.
  • “Ease” reflects typical time-to-deploy and admin/user experience.
  • “Value” is relative to the category and tends to vary most by packaging and how many modules you need.

Which Zero Trust Network Access ZTNA Tool Is Right for You?

Solo / Freelancer

ZTNA may be overkill unless you run production infrastructure or handle sensitive client data. If you do need it:

  • Prefer simple setup and low operational overhead.
  • Twingate is often the most straightforward fit for resource-level access.
  • If you already use a broad cloud platform heavily, a platform-native option (Microsoft/Google) may be reasonable—just confirm it matches your app types.

SMB

SMBs typically want VPN replacement, fast onboarding, and minimal tuning.

  • Cloudflare Zero Trust works well when you want quick wins and centralized control (and may expand into broader edge security later).
  • Twingate is a strong choice for SMBs prioritizing simplicity and least-privilege per resource.
  • If you’re Microsoft-centric (identity + device management), Microsoft Entra Private Access can reduce integration friction.

Mid-Market

Mid-market teams often need a balance: stronger controls than SMB, without enterprise complexity.

  • Cloudflare Zero Trust can scale nicely if you value centralized policy and fast iteration.
  • Netskope Private Access is compelling if your roadmap includes data security controls tightly coupled with access decisions.
  • Fortinet ZTNA is attractive if you already rely on Fortinet for network security and want integrated segmentation patterns.

Enterprise

Enterprises usually prioritize global performance, deep policy, strong auditing, and predictable operations.

  • Zscaler ZPA is a common fit for large VPN replacement and standardized ZTNA programs.
  • Palo Alto Prisma Access is compelling when you want ZTNA as part of a single strategic security platform.
  • Cisco Secure Access fits organizations with established Cisco operations and a desire to consolidate secure access under familiar workflows.
  • Akamai EAA can be a good fit for global internal app publishing and access—especially where scale and enterprise delivery maturity matter.

Budget vs Premium

  • Budget/lean ops: favor tools that minimize professional services and reduce time-to-policy (often ZTNA-first or simplified suites).
  • Premium/strategic consolidation: enterprise suites can be worth it when you’ll also adopt SWG/CASB/DLP and want fewer vendors—just be honest about scope so you don’t overbuy.

Feature Depth vs Ease of Use

  • If you need deep segmentation, complex app portfolios, and rigorous auditing, enterprise platforms tend to win—but you’ll invest more in design and rollout.
  • If you need fast adoption and simple least privilege, pick a ZTNA-first tool or a suite known for quick onboarding.

Integrations & Scalability

  • Choose based on your system of record:
  • Microsoft-centric: Entra-first is often the most scalable path.
  • Fortinet or Palo Alto networking/security backbone: their ZTNA options reduce integration overhead.
  • Multi-vendor reality: prioritize tools with clean logging export, SIEM compatibility, and flexible identity integrations.

Security & Compliance Needs

  • For regulated environments, require:
  • Detailed audit logs and long-term retention options (often via SIEM)
  • Strong RBAC and separation of duties in the admin console
  • Device posture checks tied to MDM/EDR signals
  • Clear incident response workflows (who can revoke sessions, rotate access, etc.)
  • If compliance is a driver, run a short vendor due diligence checklist and confirm what’s publicly documented vs contract-provided.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between ZTNA and VPN?

VPNs typically extend network access; ZTNA grants application-specific access based on identity and policy. ZTNA reduces lateral movement risk by avoiding “full tunnel to the network” patterns.

Is ZTNA the same as SASE or SSE?

No. ZTNA is a capability (private app access). SSE/SASE are broader architectures that may include ZTNA plus SWG, CASB, DLP, and more.

How do ZTNA tools typically charge for pricing?

Most commonly it’s per user (sometimes tiered by features). Some bundles roll ZTNA into SSE/SASE packaging. Exact pricing is vendor-specific and often Not publicly stated.

How long does it take to implement ZTNA?

A small pilot can be days to weeks, while full VPN replacement can take months. Time depends on app inventory, identity readiness, device management maturity, and change management.

What are common mistakes when replacing VPN with ZTNA?

Common pitfalls include skipping app discovery, using overly broad policies, not integrating device posture, and underestimating user workflow changes (e.g., legacy apps, split DNS, or client deployment).

Do I need an IdP like Okta or Microsoft Entra ID to use ZTNA?

In practice, yes—ZTNA works best when identity is mature and consistent. Some vendors can integrate with multiple identity sources, but an IdP is typically foundational.

Can ZTNA handle SSH, RDP, and database access?

Some tools support non-web protocols well, while others focus primarily on web apps. Validate protocol coverage early, including session controls and auditing requirements.

Does ZTNA work for third-party vendors and contractors?

Yes—this is a strong use case. ZTNA can provide time-bound, resource-specific access without putting vendors on the broader network.

What integrations matter most for a ZTNA rollout?

High priority: IdP/SSO, MFA, MDM, EDR/XDR, and SIEM. Secondary: ITSM for access requests, automation tools for connector deployment, and asset inventories for app discovery.

Can I switch ZTNA vendors later?

Yes, but switching has costs: client migration, connector redeployment, policy translation, and user retraining. Reduce lock-in by documenting policy intent, logging schemas, and app inventory.

Is ZTNA enough for zero trust?

It’s a major pillar, but not the full program. Most organizations also need strong identity governance, device management, endpoint security, data protection, and robust monitoring/response.

Conclusion

ZTNA has shifted from “nice-to-have VPN replacement” to a core security control for hybrid work and distributed applications. The best tools share the same direction—identity-driven, least-privilege access with strong visibility—but they differ significantly in rollout complexity, ecosystem fit, and how well they integrate into broader SSE/SASE programs.

Your “best” option depends on your identity stack, device posture readiness, app portfolio (web vs legacy protocols), and whether you want a focused ZTNA product or a consolidated platform.

Next step: shortlist 2–3 tools, run a pilot on a small set of representative apps (web + at least one non-web workflow if needed), validate IdP/device posture integrations, and confirm logging/auditing meets your security and compliance expectations.

Leave a Reply