Teams should prioritize passkeys when they need stronger usability and better resilience than hardware tokens or security questions can provide. Passkeys reduce deployment friction, are easier for users to adopt, and avoid the operational burden of managing lost or replaced tokens. They are especially useful when the objective is to improve authentication without weakening security posture.
When passkeys deserve priority in login design
Passkeys should move ahead of traditional security tokens when the login flow needs to be easier for real users without giving up strong authentication. They are especially compelling in consumer and workforce applications where registration, recovery, and day-to-day sign-in friction drive drop-off. In practice, the decision is less about novelty and more about whether the team wants phishing-resistant, low-friction authentication at scale.
Unlike token-based flows that depend on a carried device, passkeys are usually bound to the user’s platform or synchronised credential ecosystem, which can reduce help desk load and remove the operational overhead of issuing and replacing hardware. That matters most when login frequency is high, user populations are broad, and the organisation can support the recovery and device-change experience cleanly.
A useful way to think about the trade-off is that passkeys shift the control point from possession of a separate token to cryptographic proof built into the device and browser experience. That makes them a strong fit where the objective is to strengthen sign-in while keeping the experience simple enough that users will actually complete it.
Where traditional security tokens can still be the better choice
Traditional security tokens still have a place when the environment needs a highly explicit second factor, a dedicated device boundary, or a model that remains workable across older systems and restricted endpoints. They are often preferred in very high-assurance contexts where organisations want direct control over the authentication factor, the issuance process, and the physical lifecycle of the device.
Tokens can also be the pragmatic choice when the application estate is uneven, browser support is inconsistent, or the organisation cannot yet rely on modern platform authenticator behaviour. In those cases, passkeys may be technically preferable but operationally premature if users would face enrolment failures, recovery ambiguity, or support gaps.
Passkeys are not automatically the best answer simply because they are newer. If the business already has a mature token program and the user journey is stable, the stronger move may be to keep tokens for the highest-risk populations while introducing passkeys where usability friction is doing the most damage.
Risk and Threat Considerations
Authentication choice changes both user behaviour and attack surface. Passkeys reduce phishing exposure and token theft risk, but they also increase reliance on the quality of device, account, and recovery protections. If recovery paths are weak, an otherwise strong sign-in method can still be undermined by account takeover through reset flows or help desk abuse.
Failure mechanism: Teams over-trust the strength of the sign-in ceremony and neglect the lifecycle around enrolment, recovery, device replacement, and cross-device sync. That creates a gap where attackers may bypass the front-door authentication method by targeting the fallback process instead.
Impact: The result can be better day-to-day usability but weaker overall account assurance than expected, especially if the application allows low-friction recovery without strong verification or if legacy token users and passkey users are governed by inconsistent policy.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
NIST SP 800-63, NIST CSF 2.0 and CIS Controls v8 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST SP 800-63 | AAL — Authentication Assurance Levels | Passkeys are selected for stronger user authentication assurance and phishing resistance. |
| Recommendation — Map the login flow to the required AAL and use passkeys where they satisfy the needed assurance level. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AA-05 — Identity Management, Authentication and Access Control | The question is about selecting an authentication method for application access. |
| Recommendation — Adopt the stronger authenticator that best supports secure access for the application. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | 6.3 — Account Use Management | Choosing passkeys over tokens affects account authentication and user access administration. |
| Recommendation — Standardise account authentication methods and remove weaker fallback paths where possible. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
Decision rule: Prioritise passkeys when your main problem is login friction, phishing exposure, or support cost, and when you can enforce a strong recovery process. Keep tokens in the mix when you need explicit hardware separation, have strict assurance requirements, or cannot yet support modern authenticator behaviour reliably.
What to verify: Check that enrolment, backup, device change, and recovery are equally well governed as initial login. If the organisation cannot explain how a user regains access after device loss without weakening assurance, the rollout is not ready to replace the current token model broadly.
Practitioner takeaway: Passkeys are the better default when usability and strong authentication must improve together, but they only outperform traditional tokens if recovery, assurance, and support processes are designed with the same discipline as the login flow itself.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- How should security teams use OpenID Connect alongside OAuth 2.0 in modern application login flows?
- How should security teams map application identity flows across legacy and modern systems?
- Why do traditional security tools often fail to reduce application risk in modern software teams?
- Why do traditional application security scanners create operational drag in modern engineering teams?
Deepen Your Knowledge
Free weekly newsletter
Subscribe to the NHI & AI Identity Journal
The latest on NHI and Agentic AI security – articles, research, breaches, news and events every week.
Bonus 33% off our NHI Course when you subscribe.
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on September 18, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org