Microsoft Always On VPN and InstaSafe Zero Trust Access are both solutions designed to secure remote access, but they follow different security models—traditional VPN vs. Zero Trust. Below is a detailed comparison:
1. Security Model
| Feature | Microsoft Always On VPN | InstaSafe Zero Trust Access |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Traditional VPN (perimeter-based security) | Zero Trust (identity-centric, least privilege) |
| Authentication | Primarily certificate & AD-based | Multi-factor authentication (MFA), device posture checks, behavioral analytics |
| Network Access | Full network access once connected | Least-privilege access (only to authorized apps/resources) |
| Encryption | IPSec/IKEv2 or SSTP | End-to-end encryption (TLS, mTLS) |
Key Difference:
Always On VPN grants access to the entire network after authentication, while InstaSafe enforces granular, context-aware access control.
2. Deployment & Integration
| Feature | Microsoft Always On VPN | InstaSafe Zero Trust Access |
|---|---|---|
| Infrastructure | Requires VPN servers, gateways, and complex configurations | Cloud-native, agent-based or agentless deployment |
| Integration | Tightly integrated with Windows, Active Directory, Azure AD | Supports multiple IdPs (Azure AD, Okta, Google Workspace, etc.) |
| Scalability | Limited by on-premises hardware | Highly scalable (cloud-based architecture) |
Key Difference:
InstaSafe is easier to deploy in hybrid/cloud environments, while Always On VPN is best suited for Microsoft-centric on-prem setups.
3. Performance & User Experience
| Feature | Microsoft Always On VPN | InstaSafe Zero Trust Access |
|---|---|---|
| Connection Type | Persistent tunnel (higher latency) | On-demand, app-level connections (reduces latency) |
| Split Tunneling | Supported but complex to configure | Built-in (only routes traffic for authorized apps) |
| User Experience | Requires manual connection setup | Seamless SSO and automatic policy enforcement |
Key Difference:
InstaSafe provides better performance for distributed workforces by avoiding full tunnel VPN bottlenecks.
4. Compliance & Threat Protection
| Feature | Microsoft Always On VPN | InstaSafe Zero Trust Access |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance | Supports basic regulatory needs (NIST, HIPAA) | Stronger alignment with Zero Trust frameworks (NIST 800-207, CISA) |
| Threat Protection | Limited (relies on network segmentation) | Continuous trust validation, anomaly detection |
| Data Exfiltration Risk | Higher (lateral movement possible) | Lower (micro-segmentation, no implicit trust) |
Key Difference:
InstaSafe offers continuous security validation, reducing breach risks compared to VPNs.
5. Cost & Licensing
| Feature | Microsoft Always On VPN | InstaSafe Zero Trust Access |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing | Requires Windows Server, Azure subscriptions | Subscription-based (per-user/per-app pricing) |
| Maintenance Cost | Higher (server management, patching) | Lower (cloud-managed) |
Key Difference:
InstaSafe reduces operational overhead with a SaaS model, while Always On VPN requires infrastructure upkeep.
When to Choose Which?
- Microsoft Always On VPN is ideal for:
- Organizations deeply invested in Microsoft ecosystems.
- Legacy applications requiring full network access.
- Scenarios where VPN-based security is mandated.
- InstaSafe Zero Trust Access is better for:
- Modern, cloud-first or hybrid environments.
- Reducing attack surface with least-privilege access.
- Organizations prioritizing user experience and scalability.
Final Verdict
- VPNs like Always On VPN are becoming outdated due to inherent security risks (e.g., lateral movement, credential theft).
- Zero Trust solutions like InstaSafe provide stronger security, better scalability, and adaptability for remote work.
