| 1 | Compare image quality with a consistent method | Request fingerprint image samples captured by each scanner under comparable conditions. Check that the images are suitable for the intended enrollment or verification workflow. | NFIQ 2.0 assigns fingerprint images a quality score from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better predicted utility for matching. The score is not a percentage and is not, by itself, a guarantee of a successful match. | Run the same NFIQ 2.0 version on each candidate’s supported images. Compare score distributions across a test set rather than relying on one image or one average. |
| 2 | Check resolution and image compatibility | Confirm the scanner’s stated resolution, image dimensions, output format, and supported fingerprint capture types. NFIQ 2.0 is intended for 500 ppi fingerprint images. | Use NFIQ 2.0 only with images that meet its input requirements. A score from an unsupported resolution or image type may not provide a meaningful comparison. | Ask for sample image files and technical specifications. Verify resolution and format independently before comparing quality scores. |
| 3 | Test a representative range of users | Include participants with varied finger conditions and capture experience, such as dry or moist skin, worn ridges, and different ages. Follow applicable consent and privacy requirements. | Review NFIQ 2.0 results across the test set and relevant capture conditions. A broad, representative sample is more informative than a small set of ideal captures. | Document the test population and conditions. Compare score distributions and capture outcomes without treating a single score as a substitute for usability testing. |
| 4 | Evaluate the usable capture area | Check platen dimensions, finger placement guidance, and whether users can consistently position the required fingerprint area on the sensor. | Use NFIQ 2.0 to assess the quality of the resulting images, while separately checking whether the captured area contains enough usable ridge detail for the application. | Test typical users, including first-time users, and inspect both the image scores and the number of incomplete or mispositioned captures. |
| 5 | Measure first-attempt performance and recaptures | Record capture time, first-attempt completion, recapture frequency, and the causes of failed or low-quality captures. | NFIQ 2.0 measures image quality, not the scanner’s full workflow speed or user success rate. Use scores alongside operational measures. | Run repeated trials under realistic conditions. Report the number of attempts and the share of images meeting a quality target defined for your own application. |
| 6 | Verify data output and system interoperability | Confirm that the scanner provides the required image data, metadata, interfaces, and integration options for your enrollment or matching system. | A high NFIQ 2.0 score does not establish template compatibility, standards compliance, or interoperability with a separate matching system. | Test the scanner with the actual downstream software and required data formats. Validate image exchange and matching performance in the intended workflow. |
| 7 | Test real operating conditions and support requirements | Assess performance in expected lighting, temperature, humidity, cleaning, and installation conditions. Review maintenance, warranty, documentation, and local service arrangements. | Capture images in the environments where the device will be used, then analyze them consistently with NFIQ 2.0. Quality results from a controlled demo may not represent field performance. | Include a field trial where possible. Record environmental conditions, score results, downtime, cleaning needs, and support response expectations. |