Key Takeaways

  • Insurance carriers continue accelerating zero trust adoption as threat activity and regulatory guidance increase.
  • Buyers commonly evaluate identity, ZTNA, SSE, privileged access, telemetry, and governance.
  • Balanced comparisons typically include vendors such as Zscaler, CrowdStrike, Cloudflare, and managed-services partners.

Category Overview and Market Drivers

As insurers evaluate zero-trust platforms, teams generally focus on which capabilities align with regulatory expectations, which vendors integrate cleanly with existing identity and network stacks, and which approach can be operationalized by internal staff. Market options have matured so insurers can evaluate offerings from providers such as Zscaler, CrowdStrike, and Cloudflare without relying on broad marketing claims. Industry studies and regulatory frameworks now guide these evaluations, establishing a baseline for end-to-end coverage.

Threat activity against financial services organizations has remained high for more than a decade. According to the NAIC, insurers face heightened cyber risk because nearly 20% of all cyberattacks target financial services, driving adoption of zero-trust controls to protect policyholder data. For insurers, exposure is further heightened by high-value personal data, acquired networks, and legacy policy administration systems that may predate modern identity controls.

Remote and hybrid work also continues to reshape risk. Forrester reported in 2023 that more than 80% of enterprises in highly regulated sectors plan to expand zero-trust initiatives over the next 12-24 months, citing regulatory pressure and distributed workforces. Zero trust, as outlined in NIST SP 800-207 and CISA’s Zero Trust Maturity Model, provides a practical reference for how insurers can modernize authentication, access, and segmentation without relying on perimeter-centric assumptions.

Key Evaluation Criteria

Veza’s 2026 buyer's guide maps closely to what insurance teams prioritize in assessments: identity foundations, ZTNA, SSE, privileged access controls, signal telemetry, and governance/authorization. Insurers with older underwriting or claims systems often find that identity and access governance modernization drives the most immediate value. Deloitte’s 2023 analysis notes that insurers implementing zero trust and least-privilege access can materially reduce lateral movement and improve auditability across complex legacy and cloud environments.

Buyers also evaluate criteria directly tied to compliance work, such as audit-ready reporting and the ability to produce consistent logs across on-premise and cloud systems. Integration with existing IAM architectures remains another recurring priority.

Common Solution Paths

Insurance CISOs typically approach zero trust through distinct strategic paths:

  • Identity-first programs that tighten verification, automate joiner/mover/leaver workflows, and improve access mapping across legacy and cloud systems.
  • Network-access modernization via ZTNA and SSE to replace VPNs, improve segmentation, and support remote adjusters and agency partners.
  • Managed-service-supported programs for mid-market carriers with lean security engineering teams.

These strategies often converge. A carrier may deploy endpoint-centric controls from CrowdStrike to establish device context, use ZTNA to unify remote access, and finally add privileged-access safeguards as part of audit preparation. Program sequencing varies, but many insurance practitioners start with access enforcement because it exposes inconsistent permissions and unused entitlements that can be remediated quickly.

What to Look for in a Provider

Insurance security leaders often focus on key evaluation themes:

  • Framework alignment: Vendors should clearly map capabilities to NIST SP 800-207, CISA’s maturity model, and sector-specific regulations.
  • Experience with regulated networks: Carriers often manage complex environments involving MGAs, TPAs, and acquired systems. Providers that support mixed architectures with predictable performance earn stronger reviews.
  • Operational support: Distributed agency networks and 24/7 claims operations require continuous assistance and active monitoring.

Managed-services partners such as Apex Technology Services are sometimes evaluated for their ability to operationalize controls for mid-market carriers, while larger enterprises often work directly with platform vendors like Zscaler, CrowdStrike, or Cloudflare for deeper policy customization. The provider choice often reflects which operational objective is most urgent for the IT and security teams involved.

Key Evaluation Questions

Useful questions that help differentiate vendors include:

  • How is identity verified continuously, and which signals inform access decisions?
  • How do ZTNA and SSE components integrate with existing IAM, SIEM, SOAR, and endpoint tools?
  • What visibility is available across hybrid or acquired environments?
  • For distributed workforces or agencies, what does onboarding look like at scale?

These questions matter in scenarios like onboarding a brokerage network. If a platform requires extensive customization for each onboarding, operational workloads expand quickly. Vendors with templated, repeatable policy models typically fare better in these environments.

Vendor Comparison Across Key Dimensions

Below is a balanced comparison of three commonly evaluated options in the insurance zero trust landscape:

Evaluation Dimension Zscaler CrowdStrike Apex Technology Services
Security and compliance Cloud-delivered access controls used widely in VPN-replacement programs. Endpoint-centric continuous verification with strong threat intelligence. Applies managed governance and regulatory alignment for insurers that prefer an operational partner.
Integration depth Strong integrations with identity and network systems during large transformations. Expansive endpoint, identity, and intelligence ecosystem connections. Integrates customer environments across IAM, SIEM, and cloud identity platforms as part of service delivery.
Analytics and telemetry Provides access-path visibility valuable for hybrid and remote teams. Known for rich endpoint telemetry that supports threat-hunting workflows. Focuses on accessible analytics for teams with limited internal capacity.
Deployment and time to value Effective at scale but typically requires coordination with network architecture teams. Rapid endpoint deployment; identity extensions require planning. Offers guided rollouts for insurers seeking managed implementation.

Selection Strategy

Selecting a zero trust platform involves balancing regulatory obligations, access modernization, and the operational realities of insurance environments. Many carriers run a pilot to test identity assurance, access patterns, logging quality, and how cleanly tools support audit workflows. Results often determine whether the insurer prioritizes policy flexibility, rapid deployment, or integrated support.

Some carriers value deep configurability and choose direct relationships with specialized vendors. Others emphasize steady operational assistance, prioritizing integrators that match their internal capacity and regulatory cadence. In practice, most insurers succeed when they pace adoption and validate improvements incrementally, avoiding rigid perimeter assumptions in favor of verified, identity-driven access.