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 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 Information Security Officer
Information security officer at a regional energy supplier that falls under NIS2 and was asked by its auditor who could reach the control systems last year. Wants access granted per resource, not per network, device checks before a connection, every access and admin change in a log that reaches the SIEM, an independent audit of the product, and the identities and logs kept in Europe by a vendor whose subprocessors are listed.
GoodAccess
Twingate
This judge's pick
Criterion by criterion
Access model & connectivity
GoodAccess
Clients for every major platform including ChromeOS, per-application access through Access Cards, forced always-on, site-to-site links and Cloud and Branch connectors across AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and OVHcloud, dedicated gateways with static IPs in 35+ locations, and the tunnel protocols plus 10 Gbps gateway throughput documented. I found no public information on peer-to-peer connections with relay fallback, clientless browser access for contractors, or the individual gateway location names.
Twingate
This is access per resource, not per network: least-privilege access lists confine each user to named resources, connectors sit behind our firewall with no inbound ports, peer-to-peer is the default with relays as fallback, and private DNS resolves locally through the connector. Clients cover Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android and Chrome and connectors ship as containers for AWS, Azure and Kubernetes, though we found no public information on relay locations, always-on behaviour or clientless access for contractors.
Identity, access policy & device posture
GoodAccess
Single sign-on with nine named identity providers, SCIM provisioning documented, least-privilege per-application assignment through Access Cards, and device posture checks that run at install, at login and every few minutes and disconnect non-compliant devices when a policy changes — the model I need before answering who could reach the control systems. I found no public information on posture sourced from EDR or MDM tools, policies kept as code, or device identity bound to hardware.
Twingate
Access follows identity and device state: resources carry policies combining authentication, device security and location requirements, posture checks read from CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Intune and Jamf before a connection is allowed, access requests require approval, re-authentication can be forced as often as hourly, and disconnecting the identity provider removes all synced users — which answers my auditor's leaver question.
Logs, audit trail & incident response
GoodAccess
Gateway access, admin, threat blocker and device posture logs are documented and streamed to a SIEM over syslog with TLS in JSON at one-minute intervals, with named security operations integrations and stated log fields, and retention of 90 days on the paid plans with custom retention on Enterprise. Ninety days is short when my auditor asks about a full year, and I found no public information on log signing, tamper-evidence or long-term export formats.
Twingate
Connect events and every create, edit and delete across access, policies, devices and users are recorded with a published JSON schema, the actor field captures Twingate's own support staff, and logs stream to an S3 bucket every five minutes or onward to Splunk, Datadog or any syslog-collecting SIEM. We found no public information on log retention periods per plan or alerting on unusual access.
Deployment, API & administration
GoodAccess
MSI packages for MDM deployment with silent install and centrally managed auto-updates, a documented API with a Postman collection and tokens scoped with expiry and IP restrictions, a central control panel, and support channels stated per plan up to 24/7 phone on Enterprise. I found no public information on a Terraform provider, a multi-tenant console for service providers, granular admin roles, or a self-hosted edition — the platform is described as 100% SaaS.
Twingate
A GraphQL admin API covers networks, connectors, resources, policies, device posture and service accounts with token permission levels and IP restrictions, Terraform and Pulumi keep configuration as code, and service providers get a multi-tenant portal with consolidated monthly billing. We found no public information on MDM-based client rollout or support response times per plan.
Architecture, reliability & security assurance
GoodAccess
A getting-started architecture overview documents the Team, Gateway and Client components and the tunnel protocols, SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification is stated, an SLA document is published, high availability is configurable and gateway throughput is given. For the independent assurance a regulated buyer needs — published audit reports or summaries, a bug bounty, a vulnerability disclosure contact, a public status page with incident history — I found no public information.
Twingate
The architecture pages state what each component sees — the Controller never touches data flow, relays cannot decrypt, and session keys are negotiated between client and connector — backed by a SOC 2 report in the Trust Portal, a responsible disclosure policy and a public status page with maintenance notices. The security whitepaper sits behind a lead-capture form, and we found no public information on a bug bounty, open-source components, or what happens to existing connections when the control plane is down.
European sovereignty
GoodAccess
The contracting entity is GoodAccess s.r.o., a Czech company named with its company registration number on the legal pages, and a privacy policy with GDPR compliance claims exists. Everything else my auditor will ask about — where account data, user and device identities and connection logs are stored and processed, who the subprocessors are, and whether a data processing agreement is published — I found no public information on.
Twingate
Twingate Inc. is a Delaware corporation under California law, and the privacy policy states that personal data from the EEA, UK and Switzerland may be transferred and processed outside those regions under safeguards it does not name. A data processing addendum, a published subprocessor list and a data protection representative in Cork exist, but we found no public information on where account data, identities or connection logs are stored, and the control plane is Twingate-hosted only.
Pricing transparency
GoodAccess
Essential is public at $7 per user per month with a minimum of 5 users, dedicated gateway add-ons at $49 per month and cloud or branch connectors at $29 per month, a free Starter plan, a 14-day no-card trial, the feature-to-tier mapping for SSO, SCIM, SIEM and device posture, and an extra 20% saving with annual billing. The captured pages give different figures for the Premium per-user price ($11 and $14), Enterprise is on request, and VAT treatment and minimum term are not stated.
Twingate
The pricing page names tiers with user caps of 100 and 500 and some inclusions, a free trial exists, the MSP portal offers a 14-day proof of concept per customer network, and contract terms state USD invoicing due within 30 days with prorated overage billing. We found no public information on a price per user, prices for the add-ons beyond their existence, minimum seat counts, or VAT treatment.
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.
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.