VPN vs ZTNA: Which Remote Access Model Is Right for Your Organization?
5 min. read 
Published on
Remote work, cloud apps, BYOD, and modern threats mean traditional network security is under pressure.
Two common (but very different) solutions to secure remote access are VPN (Virtual Private Network) and ZTNA (Zero Trust Network Access). Choosing the right one, or knowing when to use both, can improve security, performance, user experience, and cost.
Access content across the globe at the highest speed rate.
70% of our readers choose Private Internet Access
70% of our readers choose ExpressVPN
Browse the web from multiple devices with industry-standard security protocols.
Faster dedicated servers for specific actions (currently at summer discounts)
This article explains what VPN and ZTNA are, how they differ, when each makes sense, how to transition, and how to evaluate solutions. We compare them head-to-head so you can decide what fits your needs best.
Table of contents
What is a VPN?
A Virtual Private Network creates an encrypted “tunnel” from a user’s device to a remote network. Once connected, the device behaves as if it is part of the remote network: it can access shared drives, servers, and internal apps. This principle is similar to how a VPN server operates in securing remote connections. VPNs encrypt data in transit and protect against eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle attacks, and insecure public networks.
The strength of this protection depends heavily on the VPN protocol chosen, since protocols determine encryption, speed, and stability. Understanding how VPN encryption works is essential for grasping why VPNs remain popular for privacy and security.
What is ZTNA?
ZTNA stands for Zero Trust Network Access. It is based on the principle “never trust, always verify.” Every access request—whether from a remote device or inside the network, is authenticated, authorized, and continually validated. Unlike VPNs, ZTNA grants access not to the entire network but only to specific applications or services.
This least-privilege model contrasts with older network access designs such as VPN vs VLAN, where segmentation is applied at a network level rather than application level. ZTNA can also be compared to approaches like VPN vs VPC, which focus on isolating resources in virtualized environments.
Key Differences: VPN vs ZTNA
| Aspect | VPN | ZTNA |
|---|---|---|
| Security model / trust | “Trust once authenticated” once a device connects, access is broad; lateral movement risk. | “Never trust, always verify” continuous evaluation of user, device, session; least-privilege access. |
| Access scope | Usually network-level: user may access many internal systems. Works similarly to VPN vs Wi-Fi comparisons, where broad connectivity can expose vulnerabilities. | Application-level: only what user is explicitly allowed; internal network remains hidden. |
| Continuous verification | One-time login, less reevaluation of device posture. | Constant checks: device health, risk scoring, conditional access. |
| Performance & Latency | Latency can occur, especially when backhauling traffic through data centers. | Better performance; enforcement points closer to apps. |
| Scalability | Scaling VPN hardware and licenses can be costly. For example, running a Windows 11 VPN server may work for small teams but not large enterprises. | ZTNA scales naturally with cloud and hybrid work environments. |
| Complexity | Simpler for basic access, but less granular control. Sometimes organizations compare VPN vs Tor for anonymity, but that’s not enterprise-grade security. | Requires policies, application discovery, device posture management, and identity integration. |
| Cost | Cheaper upfront; good for smaller setups. Organizations sometimes explore VPS vs VPN vs Proxy alternatives when cost is a concern. | Higher initial investment, but better ROI for larger hybrid organizations. |
Use Cases: When One Beats the Other
VPNs are effective for small teams, legacy systems, or when broad access to the corporate network is required. ZTNA shines in distributed, cloud-heavy, and compliance-driven environments, enforcing least-privilege access at the application level.
Challenges & Trade-Offs
- Migration Complexity: Moving from VPN to ZTNA requires auditing apps, defining policies, and integrating identity systems.
- Cost & Overhead: VPN is cheaper in the short term; ZTNA is more secure in the long term.
- Application Compatibility: Legacy apps may struggle with application-level access models.
- User Experience: MFA, posture checks, and stricter policies require user training.
How to Transition From VPN to ZTNA
- Assess your current VPN usage and inventory applications.
- Define granular access policies.
- Integrate identity providers and device posture checks.
- Pilot ZTNA with a small group of apps and users.
- Monitor logs, refine policies, and expand rollout.
- Gradually deprecate VPN except for legacy cases.
- Continuously refresh policies as threats evolve.
Evaluating Solutions
When comparing VPNs and ZTNA platforms, look for strong identity integration, posture checks, low latency, scalability, and robust auditing. Consider whether you need network-level coverage, application-level coverage, or a hybrid approach.
Summary
ZTNA is the future-proof option for cloud-first, compliance-heavy, or hybrid workplaces. VPNs remain valuable for small teams, legacy networks, and cost-conscious organizations. In many cases, running both in parallel during transition is the smartest strategy.
FAQs
A: For application-level access, yes. But VPN is still useful for legacy network-level access.
A: Yes, it enforces continuous verification and least-privilege access, reducing lateral movement risks.
A: VPNs are cheaper upfront. ZTNA costs more initially but pays off in large-scale, modern environments.
Read our disclosure page to find out how can you help VPNCentral sustain the editorial team Read more
Improve this guide
User forum
0 messages