Zero Trust vs VPN: 7 Key Differences and How to Choose

Introducing Zero Trust and VPN 

Zero trust focuses on verifying every access attempt to specific resources, assuming no inherent trust, whereas VPNs grant broad network access after a single initial authentication, creating a “trusted tunnel” that can be less secure if compromised. Zero trust uses identity- and context-based access for specific applications, offering better security and granular control, while VPNs provide encrypted network access, which can pose risks from compromised credentials leading to widespread lateral movement within the network.  

Key differences include:

• Trust model: Zero trust is based on “never trust, always verify,” while VPNs are based on “trust but verify”. 
• Access granularity: Zero trust provides access to specific applications, whereas VPNs grant broad access to the entire network. 
• Security focus: Zero trust verifies identity, device, and context continuously, while VPNs focus on encrypting the connection and data in transit. 
• Use case: Zero trust is a better solution for modern distributed workforces, cloud environments, and organizations prioritizing granular security. VPNs are still useful for basic, broad network access but are less effective against sophisticated threats.

Zero Trust / ZTNA vs. VPN: The Key Differences 

1. Trust Model

VPNs are built on a perimeter-centric security model, where users outside the network must connect through a secure tunnel to gain access. Once authenticated, users are treated as trusted and may navigate much of the internal network. This model assumes that internal traffic is safe, which becomes a problem if an attacker gains VPN access through stolen credentials or compromised devices because they inherit broad trust and visibility.

ZTNA shifts this model entirely. It treats every connection attempt as potentially hostile, whether it’s coming from inside or outside the organization. Trust is never assumed. Each request is evaluated in real-time using multiple factors, including user identity, device health, time of access, and behavior. This approach prevents the implicit trust that VPNs grant, making ZTNA more resilient to insider threats and compromised endpoints.

2. Access Granularity

VPNs provide coarse-grained access by linking users to entire network segments. For instance, a remote employee using a VPN might access a full subnet containing multiple servers and applications, even if they only need one. This overprovisioning increases the risk of lateral movement, allowing attackers or malware to move between systems if they gain a foothold.

ZTNA enforces fine-grained, role-based access control (RBAC). Users are granted access only to specific applications or services they’ve been explicitly authorized to use. Each access decision considers policies that may include user role, device security status, and contextual factors like time of day or geographic location. This strict segmentation greatly limits exposure and aligns with the principle of least privilege.

3. Authentication and Authorization

VPNs typically use a one-time authentication process at session start. While this can include strong methods like certificates or MFA, once a session is active, there’s usually no further re-evaluation. If the user’s context changes (say, the device becomes compromised or the user switches networks) the session often continues uninterrupted.

ZTNA integrates identity-driven authentication and continuous authorization. Access is granted only after verifying multiple factors such as identity (via SSO or federation), device health (using endpoint security tools), and compliance with security policies. Access is continuously evaluated during a session, and if risk conditions change (like a device falling out of compliance) the session can be terminated or re-authentication requested.

4. Visibility and Monitoring

VPNs often provide limited visibility. Network admins can see when a user connects and the IP they use, but they may not see which specific applications or data are accessed. VPNs generally don’t provide session-level logs or contextual metadata about user activity.

ZTNA provides much deeper visibility and auditing capabilities. Since access is application-specific, each connection is logged with metadata such as user identity, device status, requested resource, and access time. Security teams can analyze these logs to detect unusual behavior, such as access from unexpected locations or access attempts to unauthorized resources.

5. Performance

VPNs typically rely on central concentrators or gateways that all traffic must pass through. When many users connect or traffic must be routed through these central points to reach cloud-based resources, performance suffers. Latency increases, especially in global organizations, and scaling requires significant investment in infrastructure.

ZTNA uses a distributed architecture where users connect directly to application gateways that are often deployed closer to users or within cloud environments. This allows for local breakout of traffic and avoids the need to backhaul everything through a corporate data center. The result is lower latency, improved reliability, and better user experience, particularly for SaaS or public cloud applications.

6. Complexity of Implementation

VPNs are familiar technology and relatively easy to set up for basic use cases. However, as organizations scale, manage hybrid or multi-cloud environments, or enforce more granular access controls, VPN configuration becomes complex. Managing access lists, IP conflicts, routing issues, and firewall rules across locations adds overhead and increases the chance of misconfigurations.

ZTNA is more complex to implement initially because it requires integration with identity providers, endpoint management platforms, and security tools. Policies must be carefully defined based on user roles, applications, and business needs. However, once deployed, ZTNA centralizes control and policy management, simplifying long-term operations. Changes can be made dynamically, and automation helps reduce human error.

7. Cost

VPNs tend to have lower initial costs since they use existing networking infrastructure and are often bundled with firewall appliances. But ongoing operational costs can grow due to maintenance, hardware refreshes, licensing for concurrent users, and the need to scale infrastructure to handle peak loads.

ZTNA solutions often come with higher initial licensing and integration costs. However, because they’re typically cloud-native and scale elastically, they reduce infrastructure overhead. ZTNA can also lower costs related to breach remediation, network complexity, and manual configuration. Over time, the operational and security efficiency may outweigh the upfront investment.

VPN Pros and Cons 

VPNs have been a mainstay of secure remote connectivity for decades. They provide encrypted tunnels between users and the corporate network, but their broad access model and dependency on centralized infrastructure introduce challenges as organizations scale or move to cloud environments.

Pros:

• Simple and familiar technology with mature standards and widespread vendor support
• Provides strong encryption for data in transit
• Enables remote access to on-premises resources with minimal setup
• Works across most devices and operating systems
• Cost-effective initial deployment using existing infrastructure

Cons:

• Extends the internal network perimeter, increasing exposure to lateral movement
• Grants broad network-level access instead of application-level access
• Performance degrades under high load or when routing traffic through centralized gateways
• Difficult to scale efficiently for distributed or cloud environments
• Limited visibility into user activity and application-level access patterns
• Configuration complexity increases with hybrid or multi-site networks

Zero Trust Pros and Cons

Zero trust and ZTNA solutions provide a more modern, identity-driven approach to access control. They minimize implicit trust and grant only the minimum required access to applications, enhancing both security and manageability in distributed and cloud-first environments.

Pros:

• Enforces least-privilege, application-specific access to reduce attack surface
• Continuously verifies user identity, device posture, and context
• Provides detailed visibility and logging for user and application activity
• Scales easily across hybrid and multi-cloud environments
• Improves user experience with direct, optimized connections to resources
• Reduces risk of data breaches and insider threats through dynamic policy enforcement

Cons:

• Higher initial setup complexity and integration requirements
• Depends on mature identity and device management systems
• Policy definition and maintenance require careful planning
• May require re-architecting legacy network or application access models
• Licensing and subscription costs can be higher than traditional VPNs initially

Related content: Read our guide to zero trust architecture

VPN vs. Zero Trust: How to Choose? 

When choosing between VPN and zero trust (ZTNA), the right approach depends on your organization’s infrastructure, security maturity, and long-term strategy. Both serve the purpose of enabling remote access, but they differ fundamentally in architecture and security philosophy.

1. Assess security requirements

If your primary need is to provide quick, secure connectivity for remote employees accessing internal resources, VPNs can meet basic needs. However, if security is a top priority, especially against credential theft, lateral movement, and insider threats, ZTNA is a better fit. It enforces least-privilege access and continuously validates users and devices.

2. Consider application and infrastructure landscape

VPNs work best for environments with mostly on-premises applications and static network boundaries. For organizations that have shifted to SaaS, IaaS, or hybrid architectures, VPNs can create inefficiencies due to traffic backhauling and limited scalability. ZTNA, being cloud-native and application-focused, integrates more naturally with distributed and cloud-based environments.

3. Evaluate operational complexity and management

VPNs are easier to deploy initially, but their maintenance becomes cumbersome as the environment grows. Managing IP-based access lists, routing, and firewall rules across regions introduces operational overhead. ZTNA requires more planning and integration upfront but simplifies policy management over time through centralization and automation.

4. Analyze performance and user experience

For globally distributed users accessing cloud or SaaS applications, ZTNA offers better performance by enabling direct, optimized connections. VPNs can create bottlenecks by routing all traffic through centralized gateways.

5. Balance cost and strategic value

VPNs have lower initial costs, especially if the organization already owns compatible hardware. However, as the workforce scales and hybrid work continues, infrastructure and management costs grow. ZTNA solutions often have higher upfront costs but lower long-term operational expenses, particularly when factoring in reduced breach risk and simplified management.

6. Plan for the future

For organizations modernizing their infrastructure or moving toward zero trust principles, transitioning directly to ZTNA is a strategic investment. Some organizations adopt a hybrid model, maintaining VPN for legacy applications while gradually rolling out ZTNA for cloud and SaaS workloads, to minimize disruption during migration.

VPNs remain suitable for smaller, traditional setups, but ZTNA is the forward-looking choice for scalable, secure, and cloud-aligned access. The decision should be guided by where your organization is today and where it plans to be in the next few years.

Related content: Read our guide to zero trust strategy (coming soon)

Zero Trust Security with Exabeam

Zero trust and ZTNA change how access is granted, but they do not, on their own, explain whether granted access is being used appropriately or maliciously. VPNs and ZTNA solutions both generate access telemetry, yet that data often lives in isolation from endpoint, identity, cloud, and application activity. Exabeam focuses on analyzing and correlating these signals to help security teams understand risk beyond the access decision itself.

Exabeam New-Scale Analytics ingests telemetry from ZTNA platforms, VPN infrastructure, identity providers, endpoint tools, cloud services, and SaaS applications. This allows organizations to evaluate access activity in context, regardless of whether users connect through legacy VPNs, modern ZTNA, or a hybrid of both during transition periods. Access events become part of a unified behavioral model rather than standalone connection logs.

The UEBA engine applies behavioral analytics to establish baselines for users, devices, and service accounts across access methods. It identifies deviations such as unusual login timing, atypical application usage following access, abnormal data movement, or behavior inconsistent with a user’s role. This is particularly important in zero trust environments, where valid access can still be abused after authentication.

During investigations, Exabeam correlates ZTNA or VPN access events with downstream actions such as privilege use, cloud configuration changes, endpoint process execution, and sensitive data access. These events are assembled into evidence-backed timelines that show not just how access was granted, but what happened next. This reduces investigation time and helps analysts determine whether an access session represents normal work or potential compromise.

Exabeam also supports operational decision-making during zero trust adoption. Organizations transitioning from VPNs to ZTNA can use behavioral insights to identify high-risk access patterns, validate policy effectiveness, and prioritize which users or applications require tighter controls. Access telemetry enriched with behavioral context helps teams move from static access enforcement to continuous risk assessment.

Exabeam does not replace VPNs or ZTNA platforms and does not enforce access decisions. It acts as an analytics and correlation layer that complements both models. By combining access telemetry with behavioral analytics and other security data, Exabeam provides a clearer view of user and entity activity across zero trust and legacy environments, helping organizations reduce risk while modernizing access strategies.