ZTXGate vs Firezone

ZTXGate and Firezone both provide policy-driven access to private resources and both use WireGuard in their access architecture.

The largest difference is operational: Firezone's supported product uses a Firezone-managed control plane, while ZTXGate can run with its core access control environment operated by the customer or an MSP without a mandatory CoreZT-hosted control plane.

At a Glance​

The comparison is primarily about control-plane ownership and device-security model, not simply WireGuard.

Control Plane Ownership​

Firezone documents a split control-plane/data-plane architecture. Its admin portal, control-plane API, and policy engine are fully managed by Firezone and are not designed to be self-hosted in the supported product.

Firezone's source code is available, and its FAQ says the license does not prevent self-hosting. However, Firezone also states that it provides no support or documentation for self-hosted control-plane deployments and generally recommends them only for hobby or educational purposes.

ZTXGate takes a different product approach. The ZTXGate deployment itself can be operated by the customer or an MSP, and core access does not require a CoreZT-hosted control plane.

Optional CoreZT-operated ZTXHub can centralize license and software-update management for connected deployments, but it is not required for core access.

Data Plane and WireGuard​

Firezone's Clients, Gateways, and Relays form its data plane. Firezone operates at Layer 3 and protects resources reachable over IP.

ZTXGate uses WireGuard-based connectivity for managed access through the ZTXGate gateway. It also has a separate licensed clientless HTTP/HTTPS proxy path for supported web applications.

Both architectures demonstrate the same important principle: WireGuard provides secure transport, while the surrounding product supplies identity, policy, resource definition, and administrative controls.

Learn how ZTXGate uses WireGuard

Resource Access​

Firezone defines Resources and Policies to control who can reach protected IP-based services.

ZTXGate likewise defines protected resources and can evaluate user identity, device, posture, role, time, approval state, and other configured conditions.

Both products therefore move beyond the idea that successful tunnel establishment should grant general private-network access.

Device Trust: Different Models​

This is an important architectural difference.

Firezone's current Device Trust documentation focuses on cryptographic device attestation. A managed device presents an X.509 certificate issued by an MDM or enterprise PKI and proves possession of the corresponding private key. Firezone can use that attestation in policy.

Firezone explicitly states that this mechanism does not evaluate general posture such as OS version, disk encryption, malware protection, or MDM compliance state.

ZTXGate uses individual device enrollment and can incorporate posture information from supported platforms including:

• Microsoft Intune
• Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
• SentinelOne Singularity
• CrowdStrike
• Jamf

These are different security models:

• certificate attestation strongly proves possession of an organization-issued device identity
• MDM/EDR posture can add dynamic information about compliance or endpoint-security state

The preferable model depends on the controls you need.

Explore ZTXGate Identity & Device Trust

Clientless Access​

ZTXGate offers licensed clientless access for supported HTTP/HTTPS applications through its policy-enforcing proxy.

The Firezone documentation reviewed for this comparison describes web and other IP-based application access through Firezone Clients and Gateways. We did not find a documented ZTXGate-style clientless HTTP/HTTPS browser proxy for end-user application access in the supported Firezone product.

Because Firezone evolves quickly, this point should be verified again during future comparison reviews.

Self-Hosting and Open Source​

Firezone being open source and Firezone offering a supported self-hosted control plane are not the same thing.

Firezone's current documentation is clear: the customer-facing data plane is designed to be self-hosted, while the supported control plane is managed by Firezone.

ZTXGate is not open source. It is commercially supported software designed to be deployed in customer- or MSP-operated infrastructure.

These models serve different preferences:

• organizations prioritizing open source may value Firezone's model
• organizations prioritizing a supported customer/MSP-operated access control environment may value ZTXGate's model

Disconnected and Air-Gapped Operation​

ZTXGate can run standalone in a fully air-gapped environment. Without ZTXHub, license and software-update management are handled manually. When licensed, integrated ZTXBAS remains available for phishing-resistant biometric authentication.

Firezone's supported architecture depends on its managed control plane, so permanently disconnected operation is not the documented standard product model.

That does not imply Firezone is deficient; it reflects a different service architecture.

Explore Air-Gapped ZTNA

Availability and Recovery​

Firezone operates its managed control plane as cloud infrastructure and designs its data-plane components to tolerate temporary control-plane partitions for existing traffic.

ZTXGate's resilience model is different. It does not currently offer conventional active/active or active/passive HA clustering. Instead, administrators can create periodic backups and restore a backup into a fresh deployment for disaster recovery.

Buyers with strict automatic-failover requirements should evaluate these models explicitly.

Which Architecture May Fit Better?​

Firezone may fit well when:

• a vendor-managed control plane is acceptable or preferred
• open-source software is important to your organization
• certificate-based device attestation matches your device-trust strategy
• Layer-3 client/gateway access to a broad range of IP resources is central to the use case

ZTXGate may fit well when:

• the access platform must be operated by the customer or an MSP
• permanent standalone or air-gapped operation is required
• dynamic MDM/EDR posture integrations are important
• HTTP/HTTPS clientless access is needed alongside managed WireGuard access
• licensed integrated ZTXBAS provides phishing-resistant biometric authentication in connected or disconnected environments

This is not an overall ranking; it is a comparison of operating models and access architecture.

Official Sources Used​

Competitor facts were verified against current Firezone first-party documentation:

• Firezone Architecture Overview
• Firezone Tech Stack / Control Plane
• Firezone Core Components
• Firezone Device Trust
• Firezone FAQ / Self-Hosting

Explore ZTXGate · Start Free Trial