2.5 Comparison Matrix¶
Comprehensive Comparison¶
| Criteria | Active | Passive | Hybrid | Hardware-Assisted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| User Experience | ⭐⭐⭐ Moderate | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Good | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent |
| Security (2D) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Security (3D Masks) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Security (Deepfakes) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Security (Injection) | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Accessibility | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ (device dependent) |
| Drop-off Rate | 10-25% | 2-5% | 5-10% | 2-5% |
| Processing Time | 5-15s | 1-3s | 2-8s | 1-2s |
| Device Requirements | Camera + Display | Camera only | Camera + Display | Specialized sensors |
| Regulatory Acceptance | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Growing | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Highest | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Implementation Cost | Medium | Medium | High | Low (SDK) |
| Maintenance Cost | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
| Scalability | Good | Excellent | Good | Limited by device |
Decision Matrix for Banking¶
graph TD
A["What is your<br>primary deployment?"] --> B{"Mobile App?"}
B -->|"Yes"| C{"User base<br>device diversity?"}
B -->|"No (Web/Kiosk)"| D{"Controlled<br>hardware?"}
C -->|"High diversity<br>(India, SEA, Africa)"| E["Hybrid:<br>Passive-first +<br>Active escalation"]
C -->|"Flagship devices<br>(Developed markets)"| F["Hybrid with<br>hardware signals<br>when available"]
D -->|"Yes (ATM/Kiosk)"| G["Hardware-assisted<br>(NIR + RGB)"]
D -->|"No (Web browser)"| H["Passive primary +<br>Device attestation"]
style E fill:#1B4F72,color:#fff
style F fill:#2471A3,color:#fff
style G fill:#27ae60,color:#fff
style H fill:#f39c12,color:#fffThe Banking Recommendation
Hybrid (passive-first with active escalation) is the recommended approach for most banking deployments. It provides the best balance of security, user experience, accessibility, and regulatory compliance.