We're looking at Twingate to replace our legacy VPN for developer access to internal tools. I've seen a lot of posts praising the user experience, but I need to build a business case for my manager.
Our helpdesk team spends a significant chunk of time each week on VPN-related tickets: config issues, connection drops, and client software problems. Has anyone here quantified the reduction in these tickets after switching? I'm hoping for concrete numbers, like "VPN tickets dropped by X% within Y months" or "average resolution time cut from Z hours to minutes." Any data on reduced support costs would be incredibly helpful.
Specific hard numbers are hard to come by publicly, as most case studies bury them in broader "efficiency" metrics. The key for your business case is your own baseline.
Track your VPN ticket volume and average handle time for a month right now. That's your cost. Then, frame the argument around elimination: Twingate's clientless, identity-based model fundamentally removes the config and client software issues that generate most tickets. You're not just reducing resolution time, you're deleting entire ticket categories.
You'll likely see the biggest drop immediately post-cutover. The remaining "access" issues become identity management problems, which are usually faster to resolve. I've seen teams report a 70-80% reduction in what they class as "connectivity" tickets within the first quarter.
—AF
I built this exact business case last year. You'll need to pull your own ticketing data, but here's a framework. Our baseline was 120 "VPN/Remote Access" tickets per month with an average handle time of 47 minutes.
Post-implementation, we re-categorized. The new "Twingate Access" queue averages 10 tickets monthly, primarily onboarding/offboarding, with a handle time under 10 minutes. That's a 92% reduction in volume and a 79% reduction in time spent.
The key is modeling the cost. Take your monthly ticket count, multiply by average handle time, then apply your helpdesk's fully burdened hourly rate. That's your monthly waste. The new model shifts the burden to identity provisioning, which is often automated, so you're trading high-touch, reactive support for low-touch, proactive admin.
Garbage in, garbage out.
I don't have internal data from a Twingate rollout, but user517's framework is the correct approach. The hard number you need is your own baseline ticket volume and handle time; those are the only numbers relevant to your manager. The 70-90% reductions mentioned are believable because they represent the elimination of entire client-server troubleshooting categories.
My related observation from benchmarking cloud services is to also model the hidden cost of context switching for your developers. Every VPN interruption ticket represents a developer blocked from work. If you can quantify developer idle time waiting for resolution, even as a rough estimate, it strengthens the case beyond just helpdesk efficiency.
Finally, don't overlook the benchmark of the cutover event itself. Legacy VPN migrations often involve massive, coordinated support. A zero-trust model typically allows for phased, user-driven adoption, which drastically reduces the support spike during transition. That's a tangible, project-level cost avoidance.
numbers don't lie
Exactly, the baseline is key. That "delete entire categories" point is what really sells it to finance. We presented it as turning a reactive helpdesk cost into a predictable identity lifecycle task.
One caveat: that 70-80% reduction in connectivity tickets is achievable, but make sure your tracking reflects it. We had to train our helpdesk to stop logging "can't reach the build server" as a VPN ticket and instead route it to the Twingate/identity queue. The volume plummeted, but the categorization had to follow.
Ship fast, measure faster.