Biometrics Testing (biometric recognition vendors, identity verification depth)

Where this market publishes its structure

• NIST FRTE/FATE (pages.nist.gov/frvt 1:1, 1:N, age estimation, paperless travel, twins) machine-readable, 456 1:1 developers, 700 1:N algorithms (28 prefixes unmapped); 11 in-market providers linked (participation; rank as signal); 18 held out-of-market
• NIST IREX 10 (pages.nist.gov/IREX10) machine-readable, 154 algorithm ids, no developer names; 17 developers mapped via FRTE prefix, none in-market in the catalog; 21 prefixes unmapped
• iBeta ISO/IEC 30107-3 PAD confirmation letters (ibeta.com tablepress-1) machine-readable, 283 letters, 156 vendor names; 16 providers linked
• FIDO certified IDV products (Face Verification, DocAuth) machine-readable, client-rendered (fetch-url.py browser); 8 certificates; 2 linked (iproov, veriff)
• FIDO Certified Products Directory (incl. Biometric Component certification) not machine-readable: frozen for migration, search form reCAPTCHA-gated; replacement FIDO CyberPass registry requires login
• NIST FATE PAD / MORPH / quality / demographics not machine-readable: no named participant table on the page (results only in NIST IR PDFs)
• DHS S&T RIVR (Remote Identity Validation Rally, MdTF) not machine-readable: results under anonymised aliases; no named participant register

Own = declares at least one integration itself; covered = visible only because an aggregator, standards body, regulator or partner contract names it; distribution-only = listed only on cloud marketplaces it sells through, a channel reported beside, never counted as its own declared integrations; undeclared = nothing we can read, so no number; declares_compatibility = providers with a `compatible` shape vote, report only (kin, 2026-10-13): never counted as own, never in depth or position.

Taxonomy how this market maps onto apis.io

Derived 2026-10-21 from the 210 providers in this market we could resolve in the catalog. The percentage is the share of those providers carrying each one; it describes the market, not the tag or industry. Tag groups have no page of their own yet, so they are listed unlinked.

share of resolved cohort carrying it; tags >=0.20 & >=3 members (max 12, junk dropped), tag_groups >=0.20 (cooccurrence, non-cross-cutting; max 8), industries >=0.20 (max 6), areas >=0.10 (max 6; areas are keyword-matched and sparse), capabilities L1 >=0.20 (max 8); derive-market-taxonomy.py

Leaders by position (provisional)

Provisional: grouped by position, depth compared within a position only. Distribution (cloud marketplaces) and iPaaS bridges are counted beside position, never inside it. Unknown-builder listings are left out of position shares and counted here.

builds-on 22 · publishes apps on other platforms' stores

coverage 2 · reaches banks, carriers, systems or channels (an aggregator)

covered 1 · reached mainly through aggregators

regulated 10 · named in a regulator's register or partners' contracts

standard 58 · listed by a voluntary standard's own directory

core 2 · builds the connectors its customers need

mixed 2 · no single mode dominates

list 1 · a long list on its own page, mostly unevidenced

long-tail 1 · reached only through iPaaS bridges

distribution 23 · only sells through cloud marketplaces

undeclared 88 · declares nothing we can read: no number

Top workflows by market votes

Workflows (Arazzo) and their phrasing are generated by API Evangelist, ranked by market votes (integration edges in the graph, weighted by channel).

In-market workflows only: a step on the market provider's side maps to this market's business capabilities (), and the partner is not a generic export/notify app. Other workflows are counted as bridges (including any whose steps do not resolve to a capability yet). Methodology. In-market: 3; bridges: 0.