Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/07/2026 12:18 pm
TL;DR: A Prove survey of 2,000 Americans found that 83% are frustrated by the complexity of creating new online accounts, 60% would abandon account opening if verification takes more than 40 seconds, and 51% would switch brands because of slow identity verification. Slow identity proofing is no longer a UX nuisance, but a conversion and trust control issue that IAM and identity verification teams must treat as a governance problem, not just a design choice.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Prove Identity: Prove survey reveals more than half of U.S. consumers would switch brands as a result of slow identity verification
By the numbers:
- 83% of U.S. consumers are frustrated with the complexity of creating new online accounts.
- 60% would abandon account opening if identification verification takes more than 40 seconds.
- 51% would switch brands as a result of slow identity verification.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How can organisations reduce repeated identity verification without losing assurance?
A: By standardising identity evidence across systems so the same subject is not forced to re-prove identity at every touchpoint.
Q: Why do slow verification flows increase fraud and abandonment risk?
A: Slow flows push legitimate users to quit, reuse passwords, or choose easier recovery paths, which creates openings for abuse.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about passwordless authentication?
A: The most common mistake is treating passwordless as a user-experience upgrade instead of an identity control change.
Practitioner guidance
- Measure abandonment at each verification step Instrument the onboarding funnel so you can see exactly where users drop out, including identity proofing, step-up challenges, and recovery handoffs.
- Replace password-centric onboarding with layered assurance Reduce dependence on memorised credentials by combining device signals, possession checks, and risk scoring.
- Design step-up rules for high-risk registrations Reserve stronger verification for transactions, geographies, or account types with greater fraud exposure.
What's in the full report
Prove Identity's full survey report covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The full breakdown of password habits and abandonment thresholds across the 2,000-person survey sample.
- Additional findings on preferred authentication methods, including phone-based identity and biometric sentiment.
- The survey's consumer-response detail for financial services, banking, and account-opening journeys.
- The broader methodology and question set behind the 2022 Passwords & Authentication Consumer Trends Report.
👉 Read Prove Identity's survey on password fatigue and identity verification friction →
Slow identity verification is driving abandonment and brand switching?
Explore further
12/07/2026 12:32 pm
Slow identity verification is now a governance issue, not a UX nuisance. Consumers are signalling that verification friction directly affects whether they finish onboarding, which means identity teams cannot evaluate assurance in isolation from conversion and abandonment. The practical lesson is that identity verification policy must be measured as part of business risk, not only security risk.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when identity verification causes customer drop-off?
A: Accountability usually sits across IAM, fraud, product, and digital experience teams because verification design affects security, revenue, and customer trust at the same time. The right governance model assigns clear ownership for approval thresholds, fallback paths, and recovery controls.
👉 Read our full editorial: Consumer identity verification speed is now a brand loyalty issue
