A virtual private network (VPN) and zero trust network access (ZTNA) can both provide remote access, but they are not the same design. A traditional remote-access VPN typically connects a user or device to a network path. A ZTNA approach makes access decisions around a user, device, application and policy rather than treating network location alone as proof of trust. Neither option is right for every workload. The decision should start with what needs to be reached and how that access should be controlled.
What a VPN provides
A VPN creates an encrypted connection between endpoints across another network. In a remote-access design, it commonly allows an authorised device to connect to some part of an organisation’s network. The actual access depends on the VPN configuration, network segmentation, identity controls and the routes or services made available to that user.
VPNs remain useful in many environments. They may support legacy applications, administrative workflows or systems that expect network-level connectivity. The label “VPN” does not tell you whether a particular deployment is well designed or poorly controlled. Review the actual access scope, authentication, device posture, segmentation, logging and support requirements.
What changes with ZTNA
Zero trust is a set of security concepts, not a single product. NIST describes zero trust as a move away from static network perimeters toward decisions that focus on users, assets and resources. Its architecture uses authentication and authorisation before access to a resource is established, and does not treat a user or device as trusted simply because it is on a familiar network.NIST SP 800-207
ZTNA applies those ideas to access between a user and an application or service. Depending on the product and design, a user may be given access to a specific application without first joining a broader internal network. Policies may consider identity, device posture, context and the resource requested. The exact controls vary by implementation, so confirm the policy engine, identity integration, device checks, logging and failure behaviour in the proposed design.
The important difference is the access boundary
With a network-oriented connection, the user may be able to reach multiple destinations through an allowed network path. With an application-oriented access model, access can be limited to named applications or resources. This can reduce unnecessary exposure when it is designed and enforced correctly, but it does not automatically remove risk or eliminate the need for network controls.
NIST notes that remote users should be able to access enterprise resources without necessarily routing through the enterprise network first. That is a design option, not a rule that every organisation must remove its VPN. Some applications or administrative tasks may still depend on network-level access. The right architecture may include a VPN, ZTNA or both during a transition.NIST SP 800-207
Compare the workload, not the labels
For each use case, list the user groups, devices, applications, data sensitivity, location, authentication method and support owner. Identify whether the application can be published or brokered through the proposed access service, whether it depends on internal protocols and whether network-level reach is genuinely required.
Then compare the operational controls. How are users added and removed? How is access granted and reviewed? What happens when a device is not compliant? Can a third-party contractor reach only the system they need? How will administrators troubleshoot a failed connection? Which logs are available to the security and service teams?
Include the user experience. A more granular policy can improve control, but poorly designed identity prompts or inconsistent access rules can disrupt work. Test important workflows with representative users before broad rollout.
Plan a transition carefully
A ZTNA transition may involve identity configuration, application discovery, device posture requirements, policy design, pilot groups, exception handling, user communication and operational ownership. Some applications may need remediation or a different access pattern before they can move. Define what success means for each stage and how the organisation will return to the previous state if a critical workflow fails.
Avoid promising that a VPN can be switched off in one step. Start with applications and user groups that have a clear access requirement and a manageable set of dependencies. Keep a record of exceptions, review them and decide whether they remain necessary.
Make the decision fit the environment
The useful question is not “Is ZTNA better than a VPN?” It is “Which access design gives this user the necessary access to this resource, with controls the organisation can operate?” For some workloads, an application-specific access path may fit. For others, network-level access may remain necessary. A mixed design can be appropriate while applications and operating models change.
Read why perimeter security no longer holds and how to rethink access for hybrid work. For AltTab’s current assessment and implementation scope, see Zero Trust services.