ZTNA vs. VPN: Why It’s Time to Move On

For decades, the Virtual Private Network (VPN) was the de facto standard for remote access. But with today’s workforce operating from everywhere—and applications no longer confined to on-prem environments—VPNs are falling short.

That’s where Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) steps in.

This guide breaks down the key differences in the ZTNA vs. VPN debate, and answers frequently asked questions about why more organizations are ditching VPNs for modern, zero trust solutions. Whether you’re an IT leader, a network admin, or a CISO evaluating secure access options, this article will give you the clarity to make the right move.

What is ZTNA? How is it different from a VPN?

ZTNA (Zero Trust Network Access) is a modern approach to secure access where no device or user is trusted by default—even if they’re inside the network perimeter.

Instead of placing users on the full network (like a VPN does), ZTNA grants access only to specific applications and resources based on identity, device posture, location, and risk level. It assumes breach and enforces policies continuously.

In contrast, VPNs provide full tunnel access to the corporate network, regardless of what the user is accessing or the security status of their device.

Key Differences:

Why is ZTNA considered more secure than VPNs?

VPNs create a direct line into the corporate network. Once authenticated, users often gain lateral access to other systems—whether they need them or not.

This creates risk:

• If credentials are stolen, an attacker gains broad access.

• If an infected device connects, it may spread malware across the network.

ZTNA removes the network from the equation entirely. Users never “enter” the network—they’re only allowed to interact with approved applications, and only if they meet security requirements (e.g., updated OS, corporate-managed device).

ZTNA also enables:

• Dynamic access decisions based on risk

• Continuous re-evaluation of trust

• Built-in segmentation, without VLANs or firewalls

What’s the performance difference between ZTNA and VPN?

If you’ve ever heard employees say, “The VPN is slow,” you’re not alone.

VPNs route all traffic—internal or SaaS—through a centralized tunnel, often backhauling to HQ or a data center. This adds latency, bandwidth bottlenecks, and degraded app performance.

ZTNA, on the other hand:

• Connects users directly to the application

• Uses cloud-native infrastructure (no hairpinning)

• Can enforce policy without routing traffic through a tunnel

Portnox’s ZTNA implementation is agentless and tunnel-free, providing seamless access with zero slowdown—even for remote or hybrid employees.

Is ZTNA harder to deploy than a VPN?

Not anymore.

Legacy ZTNA providers often required agents, software-defined perimeters, and complex policy engines. But modern ZTNA platforms—like Portnox Cloud—offer:

• Agentless deployment

• Fast rollout in days, not months

• Simple integrations with identity providers like Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD)

Replacing a VPN with ZTNA used to be hard. Now, it’s often easier than maintaining aging VPN infrastructure and appliances.

Can ZTNA replace VPN entirely?

Yes—and in most cases, it should. ZTNA can fully replace a VPN if:

• Your workforce uses cloud and web-based applications

• You need context-aware access policies

• You want to enforce device posture and risk scoring

• You’re aiming for a zero trust security model

However, some organizations may adopt a hybrid approach, keeping VPNs temporarily for legacy apps while applying ZTNA for modern workloads.

How does Portnox approach ZTNA differently?

Most ZTNA solutions focus on identity but neglect device risk. That’s where Portnox stands out.

Portnox ZTNA is:

• Cloud-native (no infrastructure to manage)

• Agentless (no endpoint software required)

• Device-aware (enforces posture checks and blocks risky devices)

• Fast to deploy (live in under 30 days)

It’s ideal for organizations that want to replace VPNs, remove agents, and unify network and application access controls—all without the overhead of legacy ZTNA stacks.

ZTNA vs. VPN: Which is better for compliance and cyber insurance?

ZTNA is increasingly favored by:

• Cyber insurers looking for provable access controls

• Auditors needing evidence of least-privilege access

• Regulators enforcing zero trust mandates (e.g., U.S. Executive Orders, NIS2)

ZTNA offers real-time policy enforcement, detailed access logs, and the ability to block non-compliant or unmanaged devices—all of which VPNs lack.

What are the use cases where ZTNA wins over VPN?

ZTNA is ideal for:

• Remote access to cloud or on-prem apps

• BYOD and contractor access

• Device-based access enforcement

• VPN replacement in hybrid or multi-site environments

• Application-layer segmentation without firewalls

VPN still has niche use cases (e.g., tunneling for legacy internal apps), but the trend is clear: ZTNA is replacing VPN in most modern architectures.

Conclusion: ZTNA vs. VPN—The Verdict

The ZTNA vs. VPN conversation is more relevant than ever. As businesses embrace remote work, SaaS, and zero trust principles, VPNs are proving to be:

• Hard to scale

• Easy to breach

• Expensive to maintain

ZTNA offers a better path forward: faster, safer, and simpler. And with platforms like Portnox Cloud, you can replace your VPN without deploying agents, standing up new infrastructure, or slowing down users.