제로 트러스트 보안 시장 : 구성요소, 인증 유형, 조직 규모, 도입 형태, 업계별 - 세계 예측(2025-2032년)

The Zero-Trust Security Market is projected to grow by USD 93.00 billion at a CAGR of 13.31% by 2032.

Concise introduction framing zero-trust as an operational imperative integrating identity, least-privilege, continuous monitoring, and cross-functional governance

Zero-trust security has shifted from conceptual discourse to an operational imperative for organizations that handle sensitive data, deliver digital services, or support critical infrastructures. As perimeter-based controls erode under a landscape of hybrid work, distributed cloud workloads, and sophisticated threat actors, decision-makers must reassess foundational assumptions about identity, trust, and access. This introduction frames zero-trust not merely as a technology stack but as a discipline that integrates identity assurance, least-privilege access, continuous monitoring, and automation into business-critical workflows.

Transitioning to zero-trust requires coordinated effort across leadership, engineering, and security operations. It demands clear policies, measurable objectives, and cross-functional governance to reconcile security controls with user experience and operational efficiency. By setting this context, the following sections focus on the systemic shifts redefining the landscape, the external macroeconomic variables that shape vendor selection and deployment timelines, key segmentation and regional insights that inform targeting strategies, and pragmatic recommendations for leaders who must translate strategy into secure, sustainable practice.

Transformative landscape changes driven by cloud-native architectures, identity-first controls, automation, and regulatory expectations reshaping security strategy

The shift toward zero-trust is being driven by converging technological and organizational trends that collectively reshape how security is designed and delivered. Cloud-native architectures and microservices have dispersed attack surfaces, requiring finer-grained access controls and telemetry ingestion. At the same time, the normalization of remote and hybrid workforces has amplified reliance on identity as the primary control plane, compelling enterprises to prioritize multi-factor authentication, conditional access, and device posture assessment. These changes are complemented by an acceleration of automation across detection and response workflows, which enables scalable enforcement of policy without commensurate increases in human overhead.

Concurrently, regulatory expectations and scrutiny of data handling practices are tightening, which increases the need for verifiable, auditable enforcement mechanisms. Industry stakeholders are responding with integrated solutions that blend data security, API protection, endpoint controls, and orchestration capabilities to maintain consistent policy across heterogeneous environments. As a result, procurement patterns are evolving: buyers are looking for modular solutions that can interoperate with existing toolsets while providing clear migration pathways to reduce implementation friction and operational risk.

Cumulative trade policy impacts creating procurement pressure, accelerating preference for software-centric and cloud-enabled security delivery models

The introduction of tariffs and trade policy adjustments in the United States has implications that extend into procurement cycles, supplier selection, and the economics of hardware-anchored security solutions. Tariff-driven cost increases on imported networking and computing hardware can influence enterprise preference toward software-centric, cloud-hosted, or appliance-agnostic solutions. In turn, vendors that emphasize flexible deployment options and subscription-based licensing models can reduce procurement sensitivity to tariff volatility, enabling smoother adoption trajectories for organizations balancing cost and capability.

Moreover, trade policy shifts affect vendor supply chains and partner ecosystems. Regionalization of supply chains or reshoring initiatives may accelerate for certain classes of hardware, altering lead times and vendor responsiveness. This encourages buyers to place greater emphasis on vendor transparency about component sourcing, inventory management, and contingency planning. Consequently, enterprises may prioritize vendors with diversified manufacturing footprints and robust channel partnerships to mitigate the operational risks introduced by tariff-induced disruptions.

Comprehensive segmentation insights linking components, authentication models, organization size, deployment modes, and industry verticals to strategic adoption paths

A granular segmentation view clarifies where investment and innovation are concentrating and where integration challenges persist. Based on component, the market is studied across Services and Solutions. The Services category is further divided into Managed Services and Professional Services, with Professional Services examined across Consulting, Integration & Implementation, and Training & Education. The Solutions category is further differentiated into API Security, Data Security, Endpoint Security, Network Security, Security Analytics, Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR), and Security Policy Management. These distinctions matter because buyers often assemble zero-trust capabilities from multiple solution domains while relying on professional and managed services to bridge capability gaps and accelerate adoption.

Based on authentication type, the market is studied across Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) and Single-Factor Authentication (SFA), a critical delineation as identity assurance requirements drive architectural choices. Based on organization size, the market is studied across Large Enterprise and Small & Medium Enterprise, recognizing that deployment scope, governance maturity, and procurement agility vary substantially. Based on deployment mode, the market is studied across Cloud and On-Premises, reflecting differing constraints around latency, data residency, and integration complexity. Based on industry vertical, the market is studied across Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance (BFSI), Government and Defense, Healthcare, IT and Telecom, Manufacturing, Retail and E-commerce, and Utilities, each of which imposes unique compliance and continuity requirements that shape solution selection and implementation approaches.

Key regional dynamics showing how Americas, EMEA, and Asia-Pacific imperatives shape zero-trust adoption, compliance prioritization, and deployment preferences

Regional dynamics create distinct imperatives for how zero-trust is adopted and operationalized. In the Americas, enterprises contend with a mix of advanced cloud adoption and complex regulatory environments that drive rapid uptake of identity-first controls and integrated telemetry platforms. North American organizations, in particular, prioritize vendor interoperability, centralized logging, and mature managed services to simplify operations at scale. This environment favors solutions that can demonstrate strong integration capabilities with cloud service providers and existing enterprise infrastructure while offering clear governance and compliance controls.

In Europe, the Middle East & Africa, data sovereignty and regulatory variation across jurisdictions influence deployment choices, with many organizations opting for hybrid or regionally hosted solutions to maintain compliance. Localized managed services and professional services play a critical role in bridging regulatory interpretation with technical enforcement. In Asia-Pacific, heterogeneous market maturity yields a mix of fast-moving adopters and conservative incumbents; cloud-first strategies in some markets accelerate API and data security adoption, while in others, on-premises and appliance-based approaches remain prevalent due to legacy infrastructure and regulatory constraints. Understanding these regional differences is essential for designing go-to-market strategies and implementation timelines.

Key company-level insights highlighting vendor strategies around modular platforms, services expansion, strategic integrations, and niche specialization

Vendor landscapes reflect convergent strategies around modularity, integration, and service enablement. Leading companies are positioning offerings to deliver identity assurance, telemetry-driven detection, and automated enforcement across hybrid environments. Many providers are expanding professional and managed services to reduce friction during migrations, combining pre-packaged policy frameworks with hands-on integration to accelerate time-to-value. Strategic partnerships and platform integrations increasingly determine competitive differentiation, as buyers prioritize ecosystems that reduce point-solution complexity and simplify lifecycle management.

At the same time, a cohort of specialized vendors is deepening capabilities in niche domains such as API security, data-centric protection, and SOAR-driven response orchestration. These firms provide best-of-breed functionality that can be composed into broader zero-trust architectures. To remain competitive, larger platform vendors are investing in open APIs and extensible policy engines that allow third-party specialization to coexist within a unified control plane. For procurement teams, vendor selection now requires a nuanced assessment of roadmap alignment, integration costs, services availability, and the ability to demonstrate operational outcomes beyond feature checklists.

Actionable recommendations for leaders to operationalize zero-trust through governance, phased deployment, interoperable solutions, services investment, and automation

Leaders must translate zero-trust principles into pragmatic, measurable programs that reduce risk while enabling business agility. Start by establishing clear governance and success criteria that align security goals with operational metrics and business priorities. This governance should define ownership for policy creation, identity lifecycle management, and incident response, and it should incorporate measurable service-level objectives for authentication, access authorization, and telemetry retention. Equally important is a phased implementation approach that prioritizes high-risk assets and use cases to deliver early wins and build organizational momentum.

Organizations should favor interoperable solutions that support hybrid deployment models, enabling a mix of cloud and on-premises enforcement points as required by latency and compliance constraints. Invest in professional services and managed capabilities where internal capacity is limited, and emphasize automation to reduce manual decisioning in access approvals and response actions. Finally, incorporate supplier risk evaluation into procurement decision-making, prioritizing vendors with transparent supply chains, resilient delivery models, and clear documentation of integration patterns to mitigate disruption from external policy or trade shifts.

Robust research methodology combining primary interviews, secondary documentation synthesis, capability mapping, and triangulated validation to ensure objective insights

The research methodology integrates multiple data collection and validation approaches to ensure comprehensive, objective analysis. Primary research included structured interviews with security architects, procurement leaders, and service providers to capture real-world deployment experiences and maturity indicators across industries. Secondary research synthesized public technical documentation, product roadmaps, vendor white papers, and regulatory guidance to contextualize trends and identify emerging best practices. Triangulation across sources was used to validate findings and reduce bias, emphasizing corroboration of capability claims and service delivery models.

Analytical methods placed particular emphasis on capability mapping, where solution features were evaluated against core zero-trust requirements such as identity assurance, least-privilege enforcement, continuous monitoring, and automated response. Deployment considerations such as cloud versus on-premises, professional services dependency, and industry-specific compliance needs were analyzed to surface segmentation and regional implications. Where appropriate, sensitivity considerations around supply chain risk and trade policy impacts were incorporated to inform procurement guidance and vendor evaluation criteria.

Conclusion synthesizing strategic imperatives, governance priorities, and capability outcomes required to realize effective zero-trust adoption across modern enterprises

In summary, zero-trust is no longer a theoretical construct but an operational framework that organizations must integrate into their security and digital transformation roadmaps. The confluence of distributed architectures, identity-centric control planes, regulatory pressure, and geopolitical trade dynamics is reshaping procurement preferences toward modular, cloud-friendly solutions complemented by services that accelerate adoption. Organizations that prioritize clear governance, phased implementation, and vendor ecosystems that support interoperability will be best positioned to mitigate risk while sustaining business continuity.

Looking ahead, success will hinge on the ability to convert strategic intent into measurable capability improvements: verifiable identity assurance, auditable policy enforcement, persistent telemetry, and automated remediation. By emphasizing these outcomes and aligning procurement with operational priorities, leaders can build resilient, adaptable defenses that support modern business demands while reducing exposure to emergent threats and external supply chain variability.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.4. Currency & Pricing
• 1.5. Language
• 1.6. Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

3. Executive Summary

4. Market Overview

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Expansion of identity threat detection and response capabilities in modern zero trust frameworks
• 5.2. Emergence of user behavior analytics to enhance risk-based authentication in zero trust
• 5.3. Rise of decentralized device attestation protocols for improved endpoint security
• 5.4. Consolidation of network and application firewalls under unified zero trust management platforms
• 5.5. Implementation of adaptive multi-factor authentication based on contextual intelligence
• 5.6. Leveraging continuous compliance monitoring for regulatory alignment in zero trust deployments
• 5.7. Deployment of secure service mesh architectures to enforce zero trust in Kubernetes clusters
• 5.8. Integration of zero trust architecture with secure access service edge to streamline policy enforcement
• 5.9. Integrating continuous biometric identity verification for frictionless adaptive zero trust access
• 5.10. Embedding quantum-resistant encryption methods into zero trust for future-proof data protection

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Zero-Trust Security Market, by Component

• 8.1. Services
  • 8.1.1. Managed Services
  • 8.1.2. Professional Services
    • 8.1.2.1. Consulting
    • 8.1.2.2. Integration & Implementation
    • 8.1.2.3. Training & Education
• 8.2. Solutions
  • 8.2.1. API Security
  • 8.2.2. Data Security
  • 8.2.3. Endpoint Security
  • 8.2.4. Network Security
  • 8.2.5. Security Analytics
  • 8.2.6. Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR)
  • 8.2.7. Security Policy Management

9. Zero-Trust Security Market, by Authentication Type

• 9.1. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
• 9.2. Single-Factor Authentication (SFA)

10. Zero-Trust Security Market, by Organization Size

• 10.1. Large Enterprise
• 10.2. Small & Medium Enterprise

11. Zero-Trust Security Market, by Deployment Mode

• 11.1. Cloud
• 11.2. On-Premises

12. Zero-Trust Security Market, by Industry Vertical

• 12.1. Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance (BFSI)
• 12.2. Government and Defense
• 12.3. Healthcare
• 12.4. IT and Telecom
• 12.5. Manufacturing
• 12.6. Retail and E-commerce
• 12.7. Utilities

13. Zero-Trust Security Market, by Region

• 13.1. Americas
  • 13.1.1. North America
  • 13.1.2. Latin America
• 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
  • 13.2.1. Europe
  • 13.2.2. Middle East
  • 13.2.3. Africa
• 13.3. Asia-Pacific

14. Zero-Trust Security Market, by Group

• 14.1. ASEAN
• 14.2. GCC
• 14.3. European Union
• 14.4. BRICS
• 14.5. G7
• 14.6. NATO

15. Zero-Trust Security Market, by Country

• 15.1. United States
• 15.2. Canada
• 15.3. Mexico
• 15.4. Brazil
• 15.5. United Kingdom
• 15.6. Germany
• 15.7. France
• 15.8. Russia
• 15.9. Italy
• 15.10. Spain
• 15.11. China
• 15.12. India
• 15.13. Japan
• 15.14. Australia
• 15.15. South Korea

16. Competitive Landscape

• 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
• 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
• 16.3. Competitive Analysis
  • 16.3.1. Zscaler, Inc.
  • 16.3.2. Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • 16.3.3. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
  • 16.3.4. Anitian, Inc.
  • 16.3.5. BlackBerry Limited
  • 16.3.6. Block Armour Pvt. Ltd.
  • 16.3.7. Broadcom Inc.
  • 16.3.8. Delinea Inc.
  • 16.3.9. Elisity Inc.
  • 16.3.10. Forcepoint, LLC
  • 16.3.11. Google LLC by Alphabet Inc.
  • 16.3.12. Infinipoint Ltd.
  • 16.3.13. International Business Machines Corporation
  • 16.3.14. Mesh Security Ltd.
  • 16.3.15. Microsoft Corporation
  • 16.3.16. Myota, Inc.
  • 16.3.17. Okta, Inc.
  • 16.3.18. ON2IT BV
  • 16.3.19. Ory Corp.
  • 16.3.20. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
  • 16.3.21. Pulse Secure, LLC by Ivanti
  • 16.3.22. Sonet.io Inc.
  • 16.3.23. Trend Micro Inc.
  • 16.3.24. Forward Networks, Inc