Skip to main content
Veriqa complements existing solutions rather than replacing them. Here is where it is stronger — and where its limits are. Sign-in times and setup effort in figures, with the source of each one, are in Sign-in methods compared. One thing holds across the whole comparison: Veriqa’s primary scenario is cross-device. The application is open on a desktop, a TV or a kiosk, while the confirmation happens on a phone, in a messaging app the user already opens every day. Same-device sign-in is supported, but it is the fallback here, not the main path.

​
At a glance

​
Passkeys

The closest in user experience: the same “QR on screen, confirmation from the phone” flow.
Passkeys are phishing-resistant by design — a higher security bar. Where that bar is what you need, passkeys are the right choice. Veriqa offers comparable convenience for simpler scenarios.
Where Veriqa wins:
  • nothing has to be set up in advance — no key is provisioned for the user; they confirm in a messaging app they already have;
  • it works where cross-device passkeys break: Bluetooth off, a virtual machine, a remote desktop, mismatched ecosystems between the computer and the phone;
  • it is not only sign-in: second factor, channel linking, sensitive-action confirmation and an audit trail come from the same mechanism.

​
Sign-in widgets built into messaging apps

Telegram and others have sign-in buttons of their own, and they are free. The difference is not about price:
  • one integration layer for all channels and email instead of a separate widget per messaging app;
  • full OpenID Connect instead of a JS widget: tokens, sessions, account linking — your auth system never has to learn what a messaging app is;
  • the messaging app need not be installed on the surface people sign in from. A widget assumes your application and the messaging app share a device; with Veriqa they are usually different devices;
  • beyond sign-in — second factor, channel linking and an audit trail.

​
SMS codes

  • confirmation in a messaging app is faster and lives in an app the user opens every day;
  • confirmations are not billed per message the way SMS is: in WhatsApp, Veriqa replies to the user’s message without a template, and under Meta’s current pricing such replies are free. At high volumes, that adds up to direct savings;
  • the identity is confirmed without handing over a phone number — less data that can leak;
  • no retyping a code between screens: the confirmation is one tap in the messaging app.

​
Device flow (RFC 8628)

The standard answer to “how do we sign in on a device without a keyboard”: the device shows a code, the user types it on another device and confirms. The difference is what the user does on that second device. In device flow they open a browser, go to the provider’s page, enter the code and authenticate — an ordinary sign-in with all of its steps. With Veriqa they tap a button in one message in a messaging app where they are already signed in. Device flow remains the right choice where the second device has nothing to do with a messaging app and a strictly standard mechanism is required. Veriqa wins where speed and avoiding a repeat sign-in matter.

​
Where Veriqa is not the answer

  • you need phishing-resistant security — use passkeys or hardware keys;
  • your audience has none of the supported messaging apps and no email — the mechanism has nothing to build on;
  • you need federated sign-out: there is no end-session endpoint;
  • you need anti-fraud: Veriqa reports the “sender is a bot” flag, but that is a cheap filter, not a fraud-prevention system.