| Biometric / Technology Type |
Subcutaneous palm vein pattern (RGB + IR dual-mode) |
Surface fingerprint pattern |
Facial features |
Chip or contactless NFC module |
2D barcode (QR image) |
| Need Phone or Card |
❌ No |
❌ No |
❌ No |
✅ Requires physical cards, PINs or signatures |
✅ Requires mobile phone |
| Contact Type |
Fully contactless |
Contact required |
Contactless (affected by lighting) |
Contact or close-range tap |
Scanning printed or on-screen code |
| Anti-spoof Security |
🔒 Very high (internal veins, impossible to copy) |
Medium (susceptible to fake fingers) |
Low (can be fooled by photo/video) |
Medium (chip encryption) |
Low (can be duplicated) |
| Recognition Speed |
≈0.35 s |
≈0.5 s |
≈0.8 s |
≈1 s |
2–5 s |
| Environmental Impact |
Unaffected by light, humidity, or age |
Affected by dry/wet skin or wounds |
Affected by light, masks, or angles |
Depends on terminal |
Depends on network and brightness |
| Feature Stability |
✅ Stable after age 6; unchanged through aging |
❌ Affected by skin condition, dryness, aging |
❌ Changes with age, weight, or skin condition |
✅ Stable |
✅ Stable (depends on code generation) |
| Privacy Protection |
Highest — internal biological pattern never exposed |
Moderate |
Low (external features visible) |
Moderate |
Low |
| Maintenance Cost |
Low (no contact, no wear) |
High (sensor wear and cleaning) |
Medium (camera calibration) |
Medium |
Low |
| Typical Applications |
Banking, eKYC, government, healthcare, campus |
Mobile unlock, access control, payments |
Retail, access control |
Bank cards, transport, retail |
Mobile wallet, small merchants |
| Main Drawbacks |
Higher cost; requires SDK/software integration |
Contact-based; hygiene concern |
Sensitive to environment and age |
Must carry card |
Must carry phone and rely on internet |
| Overall Evaluation |
✅ Most secure, stable, and truly card-free & phone-free |
🔐 Mature but limited by contact and wear |
⚠️ Convenient but less stable & secure |
💳 Widely used, traditional |
📱 Popular but least secure |