Tuya vs TTLock: Which Smart Lock Ecosystem Should You Sell?
Both ecosystems work. They suit different buyers, and choosing wrongly costs a lot of after-sales time.
Read the article →A fingerprint lock is only as good as its sensor and the matching algorithm behind it. There are three sensor families on the market, and they differ in what they can be fooled by rather than in how quickly they open.
The sensor surface carries a grid of tiny capacitors. Where a fingerprint ridge touches the surface the capacitance is high; where a valley sits above it the capacitance is low. The grid turns that difference into an image, and the algorithm reduces the image to a template.
Swipe the table sideways to see the full specification →
| Sensor type | Capacitive semiconductor |
|---|---|
| Resolution | 508 DPI |
| Output | A template, not a fingerprint image |
| Matching time | Under 0.5 seconds |
| Capacity | 100 to 300 prints, model dependent |
The template is what gets stored. The image is discarded, which matters for the privacy question buyers ask.
A sensor that only reads shape can be defeated by a mould. Liveness detection adds checks that a mould cannot pass, and it is the reason a cheap sensor and a good one are not the same product.
| Capacitance check | Reads the dielectric properties of skin | Silicone or paper copies |
|---|---|---|
| Temperature check | Reads surface temperature | Cold metal or plastic replicas |
| Pressure check | Reads how pressure distributes across the finger | Rigid replicas |
| FAR | False Acceptance Rate | A stranger is let in | 0.001% or lower |
|---|---|---|---|
| FRR | False Rejection Rate | A legitimate user is refused | 1% or lower |
| Recognition rate | Successful reads on a good finger | Above 99.7% on a clean, dry finger |
The two rates trade against each other. Tighten acceptance and you refuse more real users. The useful question is not which single number is lower, but whether the pair suits the site.
Almost every reported 'low recognition rate' turns out to be an enrolment problem rather than a hardware fault. Ask for the enrolment procedure first.
Capacity is quoted as 100 to 300 prints depending on the model, but the number that matters is users multiplied by fingers enrolled per user. A household of four with three prints each uses twelve slots, not four.
Swipe the table sideways to see the full specification →
| Residential entry | 4 to 10 users, 2 to 3 prints each |
|---|---|
| Office door | 20 to 60 users, 1 to 2 prints each |
| Hotel back of house | Staff turnover decides; favour temporary credentials instead |
| Locker or storage site | High turnover, so expect frequent enrolment |
Ask for the enrolment procedure and the FAR/FRR figures together. A recognition rate quoted without the enrolment method is not a specification.
Three questions this guide usually raises.
On this topic
A capacitive sensor with liveness detection checks capacitance, temperature and pressure distribution, so a silicone or paper copy does not pass. A sensor without those checks is a different product.
100 to 300 depending on the model. Count users multiplied by prints per user rather than users alone, and confirm the capacity per model at quote stage.
Usually a wet or dirty finger, a dusty sensor, or an enrolment that did not cover the sensor fully. Re-enrol with two or three fingers per person.
Both ecosystems work. They suit different buyers, and choosing wrongly costs a lot of after-sales time.
Read the article →The single most expensive misunderstanding in app-connected locks, and how to avoid it.
Read the article →The four measurements that decide whether a smart door lock order works.
Read the article →