Zero Trust Networking Software Resources

Ripping out a VPN in one weekend tends to end badly. What are the top-rated zero trust networking platforms for organisations retiring a VPN without a disruptive cutover, ideally ones built for a gradual transition rather than a hard switch.

What tends to matter for that kind of migration:

• Can run alongside the existing VPN during a phased rollout, not force an all-at-once switch
• Extends coverage to legacy, network-connected apps the VPN was quietly handling
• Doesn't require re-training users on a completely different access experience

A few on G2's zero trust networking list are built around that kind of transition:

• Zscaler Private Access (4.5/5, 130+ reviews): explicitly built to replace legacy VPNs while extending zero trust to network-connected legacy apps, cutting hardware and operational costs in the process.
• Absolute Secure Access (4.7/5, 220+ reviews): designed for the transition itself, letting teams move from traditional VPN to zero trust without impairing productivity mid-migration.
• Cloudflare One (SASE) (4.6/5, 100+ reviews): positions VPN replacement as one specific use case within a broader SASE platform, useful if the VPN retirement is part of a larger consolidation.

For anyone who's done this migration: how long did you run the VPN and the zero trust tool in parallel before fully cutting over?

For SaaS companies, zero trust isn’t just about securing internal networks but also about protecting access to applications, APIs, and customer data across distributed teams and cloud environments.

So if you’re evaluating which is a trusted zero trust provider for SaaS companies, the tools that tend to stand out are the ones that combine identity-first access, secure app connectivity, and visibility across SaaS environments. That’s where Okta, Zscaler Private Access, and Netskope One Platform typically come up early, with Cisco Duo often used as a supporting layer.

• Okta: Often seen as a foundation for SaaS security with identity and access management, enabling secure login, SSO, and adaptive authentication across applications.
• Zscaler Private Access: Focuses on application-level access control, allowing users to connect to internal SaaS and cloud apps without exposing the broader network.
• Netskope One Platform: Designed for cloud and SaaS security, offering visibility and control over user activity across applications, along with data protection capabilities.
• Cisco Duo: Provides multi-factor authentication and user verification, often layered on top of other tools to strengthen identity-based security.

For SaaS environments, what ends up being the most critical layer: identity, application access, or data visibility?

Unlike remote-first setups, office networks involve shared infrastructure, internal traffic, and a mix of managed and unmanaged devices. If you’re looking for the best zero-trust solution to secure an office network, the tools that stand out are those that can enforce device-level trust, user authentication, and segmented access within the network itself.

That’s where FortiClient, Cisco Duo, Zscaler Private Access, and Absolute Secure Access excel.

• FortiClient (G2: 4.4/5 | 270+ reviews): Often used for endpoint security and secure connectivity, helping ensure that only trusted devices can access the network. It’s practical for managing office devices at scale.
• Cisco Duo (G2: 4.5/5 | 490+ reviews): Adds a strong layer of identity verification, making sure users are authenticated before accessing internal systems, even within the office network.
• Zscaler Private Access (G2: 4.4/5 | 130+ reviews): Shifts access from network-based to application-level control, reducing the risk of lateral movement inside the network. It’s more advanced but aligns closely with zero-trust principles.
• Absolute Secure Access (G2: 4.7/5 | 220+ reviews): Focuses on endpoint resilience and secure connectivity, helping maintain control over devices even if they’re compromised or leave the network.

In an office environment, what actually reduces risk more: stricter device control, stronger user authentication, or limiting access between internal systems?