COMPARISON · INDIAN ZTNA ALTERNATIVE
Tunnex vs Accops
Accops is a Pune-built zero trust platform best known for HySecure (ZTNA gateway) and HyWorks (VDI/DaaS), with the government and BFSI credentials — CERT-In empanelment and NIC approval — that decide Indian public-sector tenders. Tunnex is an open-core, self-hosted Zero Trust VPN focused on network access done properly. Different products, one overlapping job: replacing the VPN.
THE SHORT VERSION
ZTNA plus VDI suite vs. a focused Zero Trust VPN you own.
CHOOSE ACCOPS IF
You are in government or BFSI
CERT-In empanelment and NIC approval are frequently non-negotiable in Indian public-sector tenders. Accops holds them; we do not.
You also need VDI or legacy app delivery
HyWorks delivers virtual desktops and published applications alongside ZTNA — one vendor for access plus desktops.
Your estate is thin-client heavy
Mature Windows and thin-client support for call centers and managed desktop fleets.
CHOOSE TUNNEX IF
You want open source, not a proprietary stack
Apache-2.0 core you can inspect and audit; Enterprise modules are source-available. No appliance CALs or concurrent-user licensing.
Full private networking, not just app gateways
WireGuard tunnels at the network layer with site-to-site routing, hub failover, and split-horizon DNS between offices and clouds.
AI agents are joining your network
Owned non-human principals, MCP server scoping by host and port, expiring grants, attributed audit — absent from ZTNA-VDI suites today.
Simple operations beats suite breadth
One Docker Compose stack that generates its secrets on first boot — no separate IAM module to deploy just to run the VPN.
SIDE BY SIDE
The details that decide it.
CAPABILITY
Tunnex
SELF-HOSTED · OPEN CORE
Accops
Product focus
Zero Trust VPN: tunnels, policy engine, identity, audit
Zero trust access suite: ZTNA gateway + VDI/DaaS + IAM modules
Deployment model
Self-hosted Docker Compose / Kubernetes on your infrastructure
Gateway appliances (physical or virtual), customer-managed
Access layer
Network-layer WireGuard tunnels under default-deny policies scoped by port and protocol
Application-level access through the HySecure gateway; clientless web apps included
Site-to-site networking
First-class sites, route propagation, multi-hub failover, cross-cloud DNS
Branch connectivity via gateway deployments
Identity & directory sync
OIDC SSO (Google, Entra ID); IdP groups sync directly into policy subjects
HyID IAM module; AD/LDAP integration
Device posture
Admin approval gate plus OS and disk-encryption checks (Enterprise)
Device hygiene checks at the gateway
AI agents & MCP governance
Owned agent principals, port-scoped MCP destinations, time-boxed grants, attributed audit
Not offered
Government compliance
No CERT-In empanelment or NIC approval held today — stated plainly
CERT-In empanelled, NIC approved, aligned to RBI and SEBI frameworks
Licence & pricing model
Open core (Apache-2.0) free unlimited devices; paid Enterprise tier
Perpetual or subscription licensing, CAL/concurrent user model
STATED PLAINLY
Where Accops is the better choice today.
- Public-sector credentials: CERT-In empanelment and NIC approval shortlist Accops for government and BFSI tenders before technical comparison even starts. If that is your world, it decides the purchase.
- VDI in the same platform: virtual desktops, published apps, and DaaS alongside access — Tunnex deliberately does not do desktops.
- Legacy application reach: client-server and mainframe-style estates behind the gateway, which modern tunnel-based approaches handle less gracefully.
QUESTIONS
Accops → Tunnex, answered.
Is there an open-source alternative to Accops?+
For the VPN-replacement portion, yes: Tunnex is an Apache-2.0 open-core Zero Trust VPN you self-host. What it does not replicate is Accops’ VDI (HyWorks) or its government empanelments — if those are requirements, they are genuine reasons to stay with Accops.
Which should an Indian government department choose?+
If the tender requires CERT-In empanelment or NIC approval, Accops holds those credentials today and Tunnex does not — we state that plainly. For departments without that mandate that want to self-host an auditable open-source stack, Tunnex fits.
How does Tunnex’s policy engine differ from a ZTNA gateway?+
A ZTNA gateway brokers application sessions at its perimeter. Tunnex compiles default-deny policies scoped by subject, destination, port, and protocol into every gateway, so enforcement happens where traffic flows — including between sites over WireGuard, not just at an app front door.
Do I lose anything by not using a suite?+
You give up bundled VDI and IAM modules. You gain a focused stack where identity comes from the IdP you already run (Google, Entra ID via OIDC), groups sync into policies automatically, and there is no second user database to reconcile.
Can AI agents be governed on either platform?+
Only on Tunnex today: owned agent principals with non-operator roles, MCP server scoping by host and port, automatically expiring grants, and audit attribution for every agent request.
Run the alternative on your own hardware.
One command installs the whole stack. Connect your first device in minutes and keep every packet on infrastructure you own.