A one-time passcode can be familiar and widely understood, but it can also interrupt a payment, depend on message delivery and expose customers to social-engineering risks. Device-based biometric-backed authentication offers a different experience, often relying on local user verification and cryptographic credentials.<\/p>\n
The key issuer question is not which method sounds more modern. It is which available method is appropriate for the customer, transaction, device and regulatory setting<\/strong>.<\/p>\n An OTP challenge typically asks the cardholder to retrieve a code through a separate channel and enter it into the authentication flow. Delivery failures, device switching and phishing attempts can create friction.<\/p>\n Biometric-backed flows can use a device’s local user verification to unlock an authentication credential. The biometric itself generally stays within the device’s security boundary; the relying party receives an authentication result rather than a raw fingerprint or facial image.<\/p>\n That does not make every biometric flow automatically more secure. The security properties depend on the implementation, credential binding, device capabilities and protections against account takeover.<\/p>\n Secure Payment Confirmation (SPC) is a standards-based approach that can enable streamlined payment authentication using supported browser and FIDO-related capabilities. It is not a universal alternative available on every device or in every transaction.<\/p>\n Issuers need to account for browser support, enrolment, credential availability and how the flow interacts with supported payment authentication standards. A well-designed strategy needs a fallback when the preferred method is not available.<\/p>\n GPayments has discussed SPC support in its issuer authentication technology. Organisations should verify the exact ActiveAccess release, configuration and scheme eligibility before planning a deployment.<\/p>\n A useful evaluation considers:<\/p>\n These dimensions are more informative than comparing completion speed alone.<\/p>\n Consider a customer attempting a higher-value purchase from a supported browser. The issuer has sufficient information to determine that step-up authentication is appropriate. The customer has an eligible, enrolled device credential.<\/p>\n The issuer may offer a supported biometric-backed verification experience. Another customer on an unsupported device might need an alternative authentication route. Neither pathway should be described as a downgrade by default: the institution must evaluate which approved method meets its requirements in each case.<\/p>\n Operational teams should test enrolment, recovery, device replacement and unsupported-browser scenarios as carefully as successful sign-in.<\/p>\n Decision AI could help issuers reason about the suitability of available authentication methods given the transaction context, supported capabilities and policy constraints. A system might identify that a method is unavailable or that an alternative approved route is required.<\/p>\n But a model recommendation cannot override protocol or regulatory rules. Nor should it invent biometric support for a device, or infer that a low-friction method is suitable solely because it tends to complete faster.<\/p>\n The right decision is one that can be explained using trustworthy signals and verified method capabilities.<\/p>\n Compare challenge success, abandonment, support cases, recovery events, suspicious enrolment and confirmed fraud where appropriate. Segment results by eligible versus ineligible devices so that performance claims are meaningful.<\/p>\n A faster flow that fails for a substantial part of the customer base may create more frustration than expected. A safer method that is poorly explained can also undermine confidence.<\/p>\n Issuer authentication is moving towards more flexible methods. The strategic goal should be a reliable set of supported paths, with clear rules for choosing among them – not a campaign to eliminate OTPs regardless of circumstances.<\/p>\n Does biometric authentication send a fingerprint to the issuer?<\/strong><\/p>\n In typical device-based credential flows, local biometrics unlock a credential on the device rather than being transmitted as raw biometric data.<\/p>\n Can SPC replace every 3DS challenge?<\/strong><\/p>\n No. Support and eligibility depend on the browser, device, enrolment, protocol and applicable scheme requirements.<\/p>\n Discuss GPayments ActiveAccess authentication options, supported standards and deployment requirements with the GPayments team.<\/p>\nCompare the experience the customer actually receives<\/h2>\n
Understand Secure Payment Confirmation<\/h2>\n
Decide using security and usability criteria<\/h2>\n
\n
A worked issuer scenario<\/h2>\n
Where Decision AI might help<\/h2>\n
Measure more than completion rate<\/h2>\n
Design for choice under constraints<\/h2>\n
Frequently asked questions<\/h3>\n
Take the next step<\/h2>\n