A remote-access decision can quickly become an operational resilience decision. When staff, contractors and third parties need access to applications, a poorly matched VPN can expand the attack surface, create helpdesk overhead and frustrate users. Organisations researching FortiGate VPN alternatives are often not simply looking to replace a firewall feature. They are assessing whether traditional network-level access is still the right model for their users, applications and compliance obligations.
FortiGate remains a capable platform for SSL VPN and IPsec VPN deployments, particularly where secure site connectivity, predictable policy control and firewall consolidation are priorities. But a VPN is not the only way to provide secure access. Zero trust network access, Security Service Edge platforms, application publishing and software-defined WAN can each be a better fit in specific circumstances.
The right choice depends on what must be accessed, who requires it, where the applications reside, and how much control your IT team needs over the user experience and security policy.
Why organisations look beyond a traditional VPN
A conventional VPN creates an encrypted connection between a user or site and the corporate network. With sound design, multi-factor authentication and least-privilege firewall policies, it remains an effective and cost-conscious option. It is especially useful for administrators, fixed branch locations, business systems with complex network dependencies, and environments that need direct access to private resources.
The limitation is that a VPN can make the network the primary access boundary. Once connected, a user may be able to reach more of the environment than their role requires unless segmentation is carefully designed and maintained. For a growing business with cloud applications, unmanaged devices and distributed workforces, that model can become harder to operate efficiently.
This is why many buyers are evaluating alternatives that grant access to a specific application rather than a network segment. Others need better performance for cloud-based workloads, or a simpler way to connect branches without relying on a remote-user VPN at all.
FortiGate VPN alternatives worth assessing
The alternatives below address different problems. They should not be treated as interchangeable products. A business seeking secure access to one internal web application has a different requirement from a multi-site organisation connecting warehouses, offices and cloud networks.
Zero trust network access
Zero trust network access, commonly called ZTNA, is the most direct alternative for organisations that want to reduce broad network access. Rather than placing the user onto the internal network, ZTNA verifies identity, device posture and policy before allowing a connection to a defined application.
This approach suits hybrid workforces accessing internal web applications, remote desktop services, development tools and selected private applications. It can materially reduce lateral movement opportunities because users do not receive blanket visibility of the network. It also gives security teams a clearer policy model: this person, on this compliant device, can access this application under these conditions.
The trade-off is planning. Older applications may not be straightforward to publish, and successful ZTNA depends on reliable identity integration, endpoint visibility and well-defined access policies. It is not a shortcut around sound network design.
For organisations already standardising on Fortinet, FortiClient with FortiClient EMS and FortiGate policy controls can support a measured transition from broad VPN access to a ZTNA model. This allows teams to retain familiar firewall enforcement while applying device posture checks and application-level access rules.
Secure access service edge platforms
Security Service Edge, or SSE, shifts secure access controls towards a cloud-delivered service. This model commonly combines ZTNA with secure web gateway, cloud application controls and data protection capabilities. It is worth assessing when users are widely distributed, applications are predominantly SaaS or cloud-hosted, and backhauling traffic through a central office is adding latency or cost.
A service edge model can simplify policy delivery for mobile staff and reduce dependence on infrastructure located at one data centre. It can also provide more consistent inspection for users working from home, travelling, or operating outside established branches.
However, cloud-delivered security is not automatically simpler or cheaper. Subscription costs, traffic routing, identity dependencies and local application access must all be assessed. Organisations with significant on-premises workloads or strict data residency requirements should validate architecture and logging arrangements before committing.
FortiSASE is relevant for businesses looking to extend a unified Fortinet security approach to remote users and cloud-delivered access. It may be a stronger option than a standalone VPN where cloud security, web filtering and remote access need to be managed under coordinated policy.
SD-WAN with IPsec for site connectivity
When the issue is branch-to-head-office or branch-to-cloud connectivity, remote-user VPN products are often the wrong comparison point. SD-WAN with encrypted IPsec tunnels provides a more appropriate architecture for permanent sites, including retail locations, warehouses, clinics and regional offices.
A FortiGate SD-WAN deployment can select paths based on application performance, use multiple internet links, and maintain encrypted connectivity between sites. It can also consolidate firewalling, segmentation and WAN management on the same platform. For an organisation with several sites, this can be more operationally efficient than maintaining individual VPN arrangements and separate edge security tools.
SD-WAN is not a replacement for user access controls. It solves the transport and resilience challenge between networks. Remote users may still need VPN, ZTNA or another access method, depending on what they need to reach.
Application publishing and remote desktop access
Some businesses do not need to expose an entire internal network to staff. They need users to work in a specific line-of-business application or securely access a managed desktop. Publishing individual applications, or providing controlled remote desktop access, can narrow exposure considerably.
This model can work well for finance teams, outsourced support providers and contractors who require limited access for a defined task. It can also keep sensitive data within a controlled environment rather than transferring it to a personal device.
Its limitations are practical. Graphics-intensive work, specialised peripherals and poor home internet connections can affect the experience. Licensing and infrastructure capacity also need careful modelling. Still, for tightly scoped access requirements, application publishing can be a more defensible choice than a general-purpose VPN.
How the main options compare
| Access approach | Best suited to | Primary advantage | Key consideration |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SSL VPN | Staff and administrators needing broad private-network access | Familiar, flexible and cost-effective | Requires disciplined segmentation and MFA |
| IPsec VPN | Permanent site-to-site connectivity | Encrypted, stable network links | Less suited to changing remote-user needs |
| ZTNA | Users accessing selected private applications | Least-privilege, application-level access | Requires identity and endpoint policy maturity |
| SSE or SASE | Distributed users and cloud-first environments | Consistent cloud-delivered security controls | Subscription, routing and data requirements need review |
| SD-WAN | Multi-site organisations | Better path selection and WAN resilience | Does not replace remote-user access controls |
| Application publishing | Contractors or tightly scoped user access | Limits exposure to a specific application | May require extra platform capacity and licensing |
Choosing between FortiGate VPN and alternatives
Start with the access requirement rather than a product shortlist. Ask whether users genuinely need access to a network, or only to specific applications. Identify whether devices are corporate-managed, whether multi-factor authentication is consistently enforced, and whether access must continue during an internet outage at a branch.
Next, examine operational ownership. A smaller IT team may favour a consolidated security platform with centralised policy and manageable licensing. A larger enterprise may need more granular integration with identity providers, security operations workflows and cloud environments. Neither approach is inherently better. The commercially sound choice is the one that delivers the required protection without creating unnecessary tools, subscriptions or administrative burden.
Compliance should also shape the design. Australian organisations handling sensitive customer, financial, health or government-related information need clear user authentication, activity logging, access reviews and controls that support incident response. A VPN alone does not satisfy these obligations. The surrounding identity, endpoint, firewall and monitoring controls matter just as much.
A practical transition path
Replacing every VPN connection at once is rarely necessary. A lower-risk path is to classify existing VPN users by role and application need. Keep IPsec tunnels for branches where they remain effective, retain controlled VPN access for administrators and legacy systems, then move appropriate user groups towards ZTNA or application-specific access.
This staged approach avoids disrupting critical workflows while reducing unnecessary network exposure over time. It also gives IT teams an opportunity to test identity policies, device compliance rules and application performance before wider rollout.
FortiSecure Store can help Australian organisations match Fortinet licensing, hardware and implementation requirements to the actual access model required, rather than oversupplying technology or leaving material security gaps. The strongest remote-access design is not the one with the most features. It is the one that gives each user and site precisely the access they need, backed by controls your team can operate with confidence.