Zero Trust is not a product you “install.” It is an operating model for access, built on three principles: verify explicitly, use least privilege, and assume breach.
Zero Trust is a strategy, not a product category. In this guide, “providers” refers to the implementation layers teams use to execute a Zero Trust Architecture, including identity controls, Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), Security Service Edge (SSE), privileged access, and the governance and authorization layer that verifies and reduces effective permissions.
The evaluation lens is anchored to NIST SP 800-207 and the CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model, because the only thing worse than a listicle is a listicle that thinks it’s an architecture doc.
Most “Zero Trust providers” really specialize in one or two layers of the stack (identity, Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), Security Service Edge (SSE), Privileged Access Management (PAM), telemetry). The winners in 2026 are the ones that integrate cleanly and can survive real enterprise conditions: hybrid apps, SaaS sprawl, non-human identities, and auditors who want evidence, not vibes.
What is Zero Trust?
NIST’s definition is the cleanest baseline: Zero Trust shifts defense away from “inside the network equals trusted” and focuses on users, assets, and resources, with continuous evaluation. NIST SP 800-207 (Zero Trust Architecture)
Two practical clarifications that save teams months of rework:
- Authentication is not authorization.
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) can prove “who you are.” It does not prove “what you can do once you are in.” Authorization is where blast radius lives. - ZTNA is not Zero Trust.
ZTNA is an access method. Zero Trust is the discipline of continuously validating identity, device posture, policy, and permissions, then enforcing least privilege at the moment of access.
If you want a second framework to sanity-check your roadmap, CISA’s Zero Trust Maturity Model is a useful “pillars and stages” view that maps well to enterprise programs.
How this guide maps to NIST 800-207 and CISA Zero Trust
This guide treats “providers” as implementation layers in a Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA); the mapping below is the rubric.
| Zero Trust lane (how buyers shop) | CISA pillar | NIST 800-207 alignment (practical view) | What “good” looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity controls (SSO, MFA, conditional access) | Identity | Inputs to policy decisions | Strong authentication, risk-based access, and clean lifecycle signals |
| Device posture and endpoint signals (EDR/MDM) | Devices | Context for policy decisions | Access policies reflect real device state, not static allow lists |
| Private app access (ZTNA) | Networks | Policy enforcement for app access | Users connect to apps, not networks. Lateral movement is constrained |
| SSE controls (SWG, CASB, DLP, RBI) | Data + Apps | Enforcement and inspection | Data controls travel with users and SaaS usage, not just network segments |
| Privileged access (PAM, secrets, sessions) | Identity + Apps | High-risk control plane | Standing privilege shrinks. Admin paths become measurable and controlled |
| Authorization and governance (effective permissions, access reviews) | Data + Apps | Outcome validation | You can prove who can do what, reduce entitlement sprawl, and produce evidence |
Some platforms span multiple lanes. That helps, but breadth is not maturity. Zero Trust succeeds when policy decisions, enforcement, and evidence stay consistent as access changes.
Why Zero Trust matters in 2026
The perimeter did not disappear. It got outsourced, virtualized, and multiplied.
- Your environment is a mix of SaaS, cloud, on-prem, and third parties, with app sprawl as the default.
- The identity population is no longer mostly human. Machine identities and other non-human identities keep expanding the attack surface.
- Zero Trust programs are now judged on outcomes: fewer standing privileges, less lateral movement, faster containment, and cleaner audit evidence.
The north star is still classic: least privilege, enforced continuously.
What kinds of tools implement Zero Trust?
In 2026, Zero Trust buying typically lands across these lanes:
- Identity plane: SSO, MFA, conditional access, risk-based access
- Access plane: ZTNA (private app access)
- SSE plane: SWG, CASB, DLP, RBI, DNS protections (often bundled)
- Privileged plane: PAM, secrets, session controls
- Signal plane: endpoint, user, device posture, risk scores that feed policy
- Governance and authorization plane: access reviews, entitlement visibility, effective permissions, and least privilege enforcement
Most organizations end up with more than one provider. The smart play is to design the integration points up front: where policy is decided, where it is enforced, and where evidence is stored.
Cross-domain telemetry is not a knock on any provider. It’s the operating model. The question is whether those signals translate into consistent policy decisions, enforcement, and evidence.
Foundational capabilities to achieve Zero Trust
Use this as your “do we actually have Zero Trust, or do we have branding” checklist:
- Strong identity verification (MFA, risk-based policies, conditional access)
- Device posture (managed vs unmanaged, health state, compliance signals)
- Application-level access control (not “network access once connected”)
- SSE coverage (web and SaaS controls that match your data risk)
- Privileged access controls (JIT access, session controls, secrets hygiene)
- Visibility into permissions (what identities can do, not just where they can connect)
- Operational reality (policy lifecycle, delegated administration, clean integrations, audit evidence)
Common failure pattern: teams “finish” after rolling out MFA and ZTNA, then get hit by the oldest story in security: a legit identity with excessive permissions. Least privilege is still the job.
How we evaluated providers
This guide evaluates providers as implementation layers mapped to NIST 800-207 and the CISA Zero Trust pillars. Coverage matters, but pillar breadth is not the only scoring factor.
We also weigh the controls that decide whether Zero Trust reduces blast radius in practice: authorization clarity, effective permissions, privilege reduction, and audit-grade evidence.
This guide uses six practical dimensions:
- Coverage across identity, access, SSE, privileged access, signals, and governance
- Policy model and enforcement (context, granularity, continuous evaluation)
- Visibility and evidence (logging, reporting, audit readiness)
- Integrations (IdP, EDR, SIEM, ITSM, cloud, SaaS)
- Deployment and operations (time to value, admin overhead, day-2 pain)
- Best-fit environments (enterprise vs mid-market, hybrid complexity, regulated needs)
Best Zero Trust providers for 2026
1) Veza
Best for: proving and controlling effective permissions across identities, apps, data, and cloud
Veza fits the part of Zero Trust that most stacks do not fully solve: authorization reality. It focuses on who can take what action on what data, not just who can log in or who can connect.
Key strengths
- Maps entitlements across systems into a usable access model (useful for least privilege and audits).
- Supports modern access governance patterns like risk-informed reviews and event-driven reviews.
- Strong fit when non-human identities are in scope (service accounts, workloads, machine identities, AI agents).
Tradeoffs
- Not a ZTNA tunnel. Not an SSE proxy. You still pair it with enforcement points already in your stack.
Implementation note
- Works best when you connect it to your IdP plus high-impact targets first (cloud, data, Tier-0 apps). Start with visibility, then move to reviews and enforcement loops.
2) Zscaler
Best for: enterprise ZTNA at scale, replacing VPN patterns with app-level access
Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) brokers one-to-one connections to apps without putting users “on the network,” which is the right mental model for reducing lateral movement.
Key strengths
- Strong ZTNA posture with app segmentation and policy-based access.
- Natural fit in SSE-led programs where internet and SaaS controls are already centralized.
Tradeoffs
- ZTNA solves “Can you reach the app?” You still need governance to answer, “Should you have these permissions inside the app?”
3) Palo Alto Networks
Best for: Prisma Access customers standardizing ZTNA 2.0 plus broader SASE controls
Palo Alto positions ZTNA Connector for Prisma Access as its cloud-delivered ZTNA approach, with automation aimed at simplifying tunnels and onboarding.
Key strengths
- Strong option when you want ZTNA within a broader Palo Alto platform strategy.
- Good fit for orgs already deep on PANW network security and looking for consolidation.
Tradeoffs
- As with others in this lane, ZTNA and SSE are necessary but not sufficient for least privilege inside SaaS and data systems.
4) Cloudflare
Best for: fast ZTNA rollout with a broad “Zero Trust at the edge” platform
Cloudflare Access is explicitly positioned as a ZTNA solution for securing access to self-hosted and non-web apps without a traditional VPN.
Key strengths
- Strong for modern distributed environments where performance and footprint matter.
- Often attractive for teams that want one vendor for multiple edge-delivered security functions.
Tradeoffs
- Same story: access to the app is not the same as least privilege inside the app.
5) Fortinet
Best for: pragmatic VPN-to-ZTNA migrations in Fortinet-standardized environments
Fortinet Universal ZTNA is designed to control application access regardless of where the app lives, and FortiClient is positioned as a unified agent that can support ZTNA and VPN patterns.
Key strengths
- Practical transition path for orgs that cannot rip and replace overnight.
- Works well when Fortinet is already your operational standard.
Tradeoffs
- You will still need a permissions and governance layer to reduce entitlement sprawl.
6) Okta
Best for: identity-first Zero Trust programs where conditional access is the control plane
Okta’s framing is identity-powered Zero Trust, the “right people, right access, right context” storyline that aligns with how many programs are funded.
Key strengths
- Strong fit when you want identity policies to drive access decisions across apps.
- Useful foundation for modern MFA, SSO, and policy.
Tradeoffs - Okta can decide whether you can authenticate and access an app, but it does not inherently solve effective permissions inside every SaaS and data platform.
7) Microsoft Entra
Best for: Microsoft-first enterprises adopting identity, SSE, and ZTNA through the Entra control plane
Microsoft positions Global Secure Access as the umbrella for Entra Internet Access and Entra Private Access, explicitly grounded in Zero Trust principles.
Microsoft Entra ID is the core identity and access management layer underneath, with Conditional Access acting as the Zero Trust policy engine that evaluates signals and enforces access decisions.
Key strengths
- Strong fit when you want private app access without classic VPN dependence.
- Natural for organizations already standardized on Entra ID policies and identity governance primitives.
Tradeoffs
- Expect the usual enterprise reality: you still need to validate authorization and permissions across the rest of the stack.
8) Cisco Secure Access
Best for: SSE consolidation buyers who want ZTNA, SWG, CASB, and more under one roof
Cisco positions Secure Access as a converged, cloud-delivered SSE solution grounded in Zero Trust.
Key strengths
- Strong when your goal is platform consolidation and centralized policy across SSE functions.
- Good fit for Cisco-heavy environments that want consistent operations and support models.
Tradeoffs
- Like other SSE stacks, it is not automatically an access governance system for entitlements in SaaS and data platforms.
9) Netskope
Best for: SSE programs where data protection and universal ZTNA drive the decision
Netskope positions Private Access as “Universal ZTNA” for consistent access across environments, and ties it into broader SSE controls.
Key strengths
- Strong where organizations want tighter control over data movement and SaaS usage.
- Private access plus policy plus visibility is a solid recipe when executed well.
Tradeoffs
- Zero Trust still needs permission governance. Otherwise, you get clean connectivity to overly broad access.
10) CyberArk
Best for: privileged access as a Zero Trust control plane
CyberArk’s Identity Security Platform message is broad, but the core value is classical and still mandatory: reduce standing privilege, control high-risk identities, and harden access paths that attackers love.
Market note: Palo Alto Networks announced an agreement to acquire CyberArk in July 2025, which is a pretty loud market signal that identity and privileged access are becoming first-class platform components, not bolt-ons. Palo Alto Networks Announces Agreement to Acquire CyberArk, the Identity Security Leader.
Key strengths
- Strong coverage for privileged access control patterns across human and machine identities.
- Critical for Zero Trust programs that want to materially reduce blast radius.
Tradeoffs
- Privileged Access Management (PAM) does not replace entitlement visibility across every SaaS app and data system. Pair it with governance.
11) CrowdStrike
Best for: real-time endpoint and identity risk signals that feed access decisions
CrowdStrike’s Zero Trust messaging centers on real-time checks and dynamic risk scoring that can inform conditional access decisions.
Key strengths
- Very useful as the “signal engine” that informs conditional access and policy decisions.
- Strong fit when you want enforcement decisions to reflect real endpoint state.
Tradeoffs
- CrowdStrike is not a ZTNA broker for private apps by itself, and it is not a permissions governance layer. It is a high-value input into those systems.
Honorable mentions to watch
AWS Verified Access
Why it matters: cloud-native, app-centric Zero Trust access for AWS-heavy shops
Cato Networks
Why it matters: SASE-first consolidation plus universal ZTNA patterns
Twingate
Why it matters: modern ZTNA that resonates with teams optimizing for speed and usability
How to choose the best Zero Trust provider for your environment
Here is the practical decision tree I would use in a real program review.
If you are SSE-first
Start with: Zscaler, Netskope, Cisco, Cloudflare
Then make sure you have a plan for: entitlement visibility, access reviews, and evidence.
If you are identity-first
Start with: Okta or Microsoft Entra
Then pick ZTNA and SSE based on app mix and data risk.
If private app access is the urgent gap
Shortlist: Zscaler, Palo Alto, Cloudflare, Fortinet
Define success as “no implicit network access,” not “VPN replacement completed.”
If privileged access is the real threat
Shortlist: CyberArk, and treat it as core Zero Trust infrastructure.
Then pair governance so privilege does not quietly reappear in SaaS and data platforms.
If you cannot answer “who can do what?”
Add a governance and authorization layer. This is where access reviews, least privilege, and effective permissions become measurable, operational controls, not slideware.
FAQ
What is a Zero Trust provider?
A vendor that supports one or more Zero Trust control planes: identity, access (ZTNA), SSE, privileged access, signals, and governance. NIST treats Zero Trust as an architecture, so providers map to components, not a single box.
Is ZTNA the same as Zero Trust
No. ZTNA is a method for reaching private apps without broad network access. Zero Trust is the broader operating model that includes continuous evaluation, least privilege, and governance.
What is the difference between SSE and SASE?
SSE is the security stack delivered at the edge (SWG, CASB, ZTNA, DLP, and related controls). SASE typically combines SSE with networking capabilities like SD-WAN.
Why is privileged access central to Zero Trust
Because standing privilege turns compromise into catastrophe. Zero Trust assumes breach, so privileged paths must be minimized, controlled, and monitored.
What should I implement first?
Most programs start with identity hardening (MFA, conditional access) and a ZTNA plan for private apps, then mature into governance and authorization control as the program moves from “access” to “blast radius reduction.”
Conclusion
Zero Trust in 2026 is about making access boring again.
- Identity verifies the actor.
- ZTNA and SSE control the path.
- PAM controls the crown jewels.
- Signals keep policy honest.
- Governance proves, and reduces, effective permissions.
If your current “Zero Trust” stack can authenticate users and tunnel them to apps but cannot clearly answer what those identities can do once inside, you have built a secure front door on a house with too many master keys.
What to do next
Set the foundation
If you want the architect-grade version of this guide, start with Identity Zero Trust Architecture so your program is anchored to identity, authorization, and enforcement, not logos.
Operationalize least privilege
Then move from “we have policies” to “we can prove control” with User Access Review Software so reviews focus on effective permissions and blast radius, not busywork.
Ready to explore Veza?
Schedule a demo
