Business VPN & Zero Trust Access · head-to-head
GoodAccess vs Twingate
As of 6 Nov 2026, the panel rates GoodAccess 3/5 and Twingate 3/5 in Business VPN & Zero Trust Access. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 1 of the 6 judges picks GoodAccess and 5 pick Twingate. GoodAccess scores higher on 1 of 7 criteria (Pricing transparency). Twingate scores higher on 6 of 7 criteria (Architecture, reliability & security assurance, Deployment, API & administration, European sovereignty, plus 3 more). Provenance — GoodAccess: EU-Made; Twingate: Rest of world. Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made.
The short answer
The split is the story. Twingate's mean is higher on six criteria, GoodAccess on one. Twingate leads deployment and administration (7.0 vs 5.5, six judges lean Twingate), architecture and assurance (6.7 vs 5.0, six lean Twingate), identity and policy (8.0 vs 7.2, five lean Twingate, one tie) and sovereignty (3.8 vs 2.8, four lean Twingate, two tie); access and connectivity (7.0 vs 6.8) and visibility and audit (6.8 vs 6.7) each draw five ties. GoodAccess takes pricing transparency, 6.5 vs 3.3, with six judges leaning GoodAccess and zero leaning Twingate: its captured pages give different figures for the Premium per-user price, $11 and $14, while we found no public per-user price for Twingate. Weighted totals favor Twingate on five judges; the panel's skeptic has GoodAccess ahead, 6 vs 5.9. Each listed sovereignty attribute reads unknown for both. No overall winner is declared.
Choose GoodAccess if
- You need to compute an annual cost from what is published — pricing transparency leans GoodAccess, 6.5 vs 3.3 (six judges to zero), and we found no public per-user price for Twingate.
- Your procurement team requires a published per-user price to shortlist a vendor — the captured pages show one for GoodAccess Premium, though they give different figures for it, $11 and $14.
- You need dedicated gateways with static IPs in 35+ locations at a published price — access and connectivity is close (6.8 vs 7.0, five judges tie) and pricing transparency leans GoodAccess.
- You need logs with published fields streaming to your SIEM alongside a published price — visibility and audit draws five ties (6.7 vs 6.8) and pricing transparency leans GoodAccess.
- Your priorities match the panel's skeptic — the one weighted total that favors GoodAccess, 6 vs 5.9.
Choose Twingate if
- You need authentication delegated to your own identity provider, posture checks reading CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Intune and Jamf, and re-authentication windows from one hour to 31 days — identity and policy is 8.0 vs 7.2, five judges lean Twingate, one tie.
- Your team owns day-to-day deployment and administration — the criterion stands at 7.0 vs 5.5, six judges lean Twingate.
- You weigh architecture and assurance evidence heavily — it stands at 6.7 vs 5.0, six judges lean Twingate; the verdict notes the security whitepaper sits behind a lead-capture form.
- You need documented clarity on data transfers before signing — sovereignty leans Twingate 3.8 vs 2.8 (four judges, two ties); its privacy policy acknowledges transfers of EEA, UK and Swiss personal data outside those regions, while we found no public information for GoodAccess on where account data and logs are stored or processed.
- Your role matches the panel's IT lead, devops engineer, MSP technician, operations manager or security officer — weighted totals favor Twingate in each case: 6.2 vs 5.9, 6.7 vs 5.8, 6.3 vs 5.9, 6.3 vs 5.8, 6.5 vs 5.7.
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The bench's picks
Same scores, different priorities: each judge's weighting applied to both products. The split is the finding.
- The IT Lead GoodAccess Twingate picks Twingate
- The DevOps Engineer GoodAccess Twingate picks Twingate
- The MSP Technician GoodAccess Twingate picks Twingate
- The Operations Manager GoodAccess Twingate picks Twingate
- The Information Security Officer GoodAccess Twingate picks Twingate
- The Skeptic GoodAccess Twingate picks GoodAccess
Criterion by criterion
| Criterion | GoodAccess | Twingate |
|---|---|---|
| Access model & connectivity | 3.5 of 5 | 3.5 of 5 |
| Identity, access policy & device posture | 3.5 of 5 | 4 of 5 |
| Logs, audit trail & incident response | 3.5 of 5 | 3.5 of 5 |
| Deployment, API & administration | 3 of 5 | 3.5 of 5 |
| Architecture, reliability & security assurance | 2.5 of 5 | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 | 2 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3.5 of 5 | 1.5 of 5 |
| Criterion | GoodAccess | Twingate | The bench leans |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access model & connectivity | Twingate, 1 of 6 judges | ||
| Identity, access policy & device posture | Twingate, 5 of 6 judges | ||
| Logs, audit trail & incident response | Twingate, 1 of 6 judges | ||
| Deployment, API & administration | Twingate, 6 of 6 judges | ||
| Architecture, reliability & security assurance | Twingate, 6 of 6 judges | ||
| European sovereignty | Twingate, 4 of 6 judges | ||
| Pricing transparency | GoodAccess, 6 of 6 judges |
Stars show the bench average per criterion; the lean counts which product each judge scored higher. Open a judge's tab for their reasoning on both sides.
Sovereignty, side by side
| Dimension | GoodAccess | Twingate |
|---|---|---|
| Legal entity | Not determined | Not determined |
| Hosting location | Not determined | Not determined |
| Hosting options | Not determined | Not determined |
| Open source | Not determined | Not determined |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | Not determined |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | Not determined |
Facts, side by side
Only facts both products carry under the same definition — anything else would not be a fair row.
| Legal · Copyright | 2026 · GoodAccess1 | 2026 · Twingate2 |
|---|---|---|
| Product · Client platforms | Windows · Mac · Android · iOS · Linux · Chrome OS3 | macOS · Windows · Linux · Chrome · iOS · Android4 |
| Product · Device posture check | Device posture check5 | crowdstrike · jamf · kandji · iru · inTune · sentinelOne · onePassword · manualVerification · hardDriveEncryption · screenLockPasscode · firewall · biometric · antivirus · osVersion6 |
| Product · Dns filtering | DNS filtering5 | yes7 |
| Product · Encryption | encryption in transit · yes8 | yes9 |
| Product · Free trial | 14 · yes8 | yes7 |
| Product · Positioning | ZTNA / SASE platform positioned as VPN replacement10 | Identity-based access for users, services, and AI agents that deploys in minutes, scales to every resource, and finally lets you retire your VPN7 |
Questions about GoodAccess and Twingate
Which is better, GoodAccess or Twingate?
As of 6 Nov 2026, the panel rates both 3/5. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 1 of the 6 judges picks GoodAccess and 5 pick Twingate. Which one fits depends on the criteria that matter to you; the table on this page shows both side by side, and each judge’s reading has its own page. Both were scored by the same AI bench under the same rubric, from public evidence only, as the methodology describes.
Is GoodAccess or Twingate European?
GoodAccess is European (EU-Made). Twingate is not European by provenance (Rest of world). Provenance is read from each company’s own legal pages: who builds it and who owns it.
Do GoodAccess and Twingate have a free plan?
As of 6 Nov 2026, GoodAccess’s own pages state a free plan; Twingate’s pages as captured do not. Each product page links the pricing page it was read from.