COMPARISON · INDIAN ZTNA ALTERNATIVE
Tunnex vs InstaSafe
InstaSafe is India's most recognized ZTNA vendor — a Bengaluru-built, cloud-delivered Software Defined Perimeter platform and the only Indian company in Gartner's ZTNA Market Guide. Tunnex takes a different bet: an open-core Zero Trust VPN you self-host, where nothing is reachable until a default-deny policy allows it. Here is how they actually compare.
THE SHORT VERSION
Cloud SaaS access brokering vs. the VPN you run yourself.
CHOOSE INSTASAFE IF
You want zero infrastructure to run
InstaSafe is pure SaaS — software-defined perimeter, no gateway hardware or VMs to operate, live in days.
You need an analyst-recognized enterprise vendor
Gartner ZTNA Market Guide listing, DSCI recognition, and a decade of enterprise deployments since 2012.
Agentless or browser-based access matters
Modules for application access (ZTAA) and an Enterprise Secure Browser for contractors on unmanaged devices.
CHOOSE TUNNEX IF
Data must stay on your infrastructure
Self-hosted end to end — control plane, gateways, and logs on your VPS or Kubernetes cluster. Useful for DPDP-aligned data-residency postures: traffic never transits a vendor cloud.
You need full network access, not just app brokering
WireGuard tunnels at the network layer: thick clients, site-to-site routing between offices and VPCs, split and full tunnel.
AI agents need governed access
Owned non-human principals, MCP server scoping by host and port, expiring grants, attributed audit — no equivalent in any Indian ZTNA suite today.
Transparent free core instead of quote-based pricing
Apache-2.0 open core is free with unlimited devices; Enterprise adds SSO, Zero Trust policies, and agent governance.
SIDE BY SIDE
The details that decide it.
CAPABILITY
Tunnex
SELF-HOSTED · OPEN CORE
InstaSafe
Deployment model
Fully self-hosted on your infrastructure; offline licence verification
Pure cloud SaaS (Software Defined Perimeter)
Access layer
Network-layer WireGuard tunnels governed by default-deny policies down to port and protocol
Application-level access brokering (ZTAA) plus IP-layer ZTNA for thick clients
Site-to-site networking
First-class sites, route propagation, hub failover, cross-cloud DNS
Cloud connectivity via its Cloud Access module
Identity & MFA
OIDC SSO (Google, Entra ID), directory group sync into policies, org-wide MFA
MFA and SSO bundled across modules; Azure AD integration
Device posture
Admin approval gate plus OS and disk-encryption checks (Enterprise)
Device posture verification as part of continuous verification
AI agents & MCP governance
Owned agent principals, port-scoped MCP destinations, time-boxed grants, attributed audit
Not offered
Audit trail
Per-rule flow logs plus audit log with system actors and stated causes
Visibility and SIEM integration
Licence & pricing model
Open core (Apache-2.0), free unlimited devices; paid Enterprise tier
Per-user subscription, quote-based via Indian distributors and AWS Marketplace
Analyst recognition
Newer entrant — no Gartner listing yet
Only Indian company in Gartner’s ZTNA Market Guide; DSCI-recognized
STATED PLAINLY
Where InstaSafe is the better choice today.
- Nothing to operate: a pure SaaS rollout with no gateways, no VMs, and no patching. If your team cannot own infrastructure, that alone decides it.
- Enterprise pedigree: a decade of deployments, Gartner Market Guide inclusion, and sales/support coverage across India through major distributors.
- Agentless and browser-based access patterns for contractors and unmanaged devices that a client-based VPN does not address.
QUESTIONS
InstaSafe → Tunnex, answered.
Is there a self-hosted alternative to InstaSafe?+
Yes — Tunnex is one. It is an open-core Zero Trust VPN you run entirely on your own infrastructure: control plane on a VPS or Kubernetes, WireGuard gateways at each site, and logs that never leave your environment. The trade is operating that stack yourself instead of buying a managed service.
Which is better for DPDP data residency?+
Both can keep data within India, but differently: InstaSafe offers Indian cloud delivery from a Bengaluru-headquartered vendor, while Tunnex lets you host the entire control plane and log store on infrastructure you choose — nothing transits or rests on a vendor platform. If your compliance posture requires that you operate the storage yourself, self-hosting is the stronger answer.
How is Tunnex different from ZTNA platforms like InstaSafe?+
Most ZTNA platforms broker application-level connections through their cloud. Tunnex establishes network-layer tunnels through gateways you run, then enforces default-deny policies scoped by subject, destination, port, and protocol at the gateway kernel. You get full private networking — including site-to-site — rather than per-app tunnels only.
Does either support AI agent access control?+
Tunnex issues owned non-human principals to AI agents, scopes their access to MCP servers by host and port, expires grants automatically, and attributes every request in the audit log. This capability is not present in InstaSafe’s current modules.
What does Tunnex cost compared to InstaSafe?+
InstaSafe uses quote-based per-user subscriptions sized by module. Tunnex publishes its tiers: the open core is free with unlimited devices, and Enterprise adds SSO, Zero Trust policies, device posture, and AI agent governance under a licence you can verify offline.
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.