eKYC Performance Benchmarking¶
Overview¶
How to evaluate eKYC vendors and measure system performance — POC design, metrics, and comparison methodology.
POC Evaluation Framework¶
| Dimension | Metrics | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | STP rate, false acceptance rate, false rejection rate | 30% |
| Document coverage | Countries and document types supported | 15% |
| Speed | End-to-end latency (P50, P95) | 15% |
| Security | Liveness detection, injection prevention, certifications | 15% |
| Integration | SDK quality, API design, documentation | 10% |
| Cost | Per-verification price at volume | 10% |
| Support | SLA, response time, dedicated support | 5% |
Testing Methodology¶
| Test | What It Measures |
|---|---|
| Golden set | 500+ known-good and known-bad samples → measure accuracy |
| Demographic coverage | Test across age, ethnicity, gender → check for bias |
| Attack testing | Print, screen, mask, deepfake samples → measure security |
| Document diversity | All expected document types → check coverage |
| Load testing | Peak traffic simulation → measure latency under load |
Key Takeaways¶
Summary
- Always test with your own data — vendor benchmarks use ideal conditions
- Golden set of known-good/known-bad samples is essential for accuracy measurement
- Demographic testing reveals bias invisible in aggregate metrics
- Weight accuracy and security highest — cost matters but shouldn't drive the decision