How In-Display Fingerprint Sensors Are Getting More Accurate

Fact-checked by the VisualEnews editorial team

Updated July 2026

An in-display fingerprint sensor is a biometric reader embedded beneath a smartphone’s screen, eliminating the need for a dedicated physical button. Qualcomm’s third-generation ultrasonic sensor, used in flagship Android devices, expands the sensing area well beyond its predecessor, according to Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 platform documentation. Alex Katouzian, senior vice president and general manager of mobile at Qualcomm, has pointed to size as a core driver of accuracy: “The bigger size also gives the phone a clearer image of the fingerprint and lets it map even more parts of the finger,” Katouzian said, as reported by CNET.

Smartphone makers are pushing in-display sensors into mid-range devices now, which means accuracy improvements affect hundreds of millions of users, not just flagship buyers. Smartphones already account for 72.3% of the in-display fingerprint sensor market, according to Credence Research’s 2024 market analysis, and that share is climbing as chipmakers like MediaTek and Qualcomm push the hardware downmarket.

How Do Optical Sensors Work?

Optical in-display fingerprint sensors work by flashing the OLED screen as a light source, capturing the reflected image of your fingertip through a photodetector array beneath the panel. The image is then compared against a stored biometric template using pattern-recognition algorithms rooted in the same matching principles that NIST evaluates for national biometric standards.

Early optical designs used a single, narrow sensing zone. Modern implementations from manufacturers like Goodix and Egis Technology now deploy larger sensor arrays that capture more ridge-and-valley detail per scan. Optical sensors remain the single largest technology category in the market, holding 48.6% share in 2024 according to Credence Research, largely because they cost less to manufacture than ultrasonic modules.

A key limitation of optical sensors is that they read only the surface of the skin. Wet, dry, or worn fingertips can scatter light unpredictably, which degrades match confidence. Vendors address this by increasing image resolution; current optical sensors operate at 1,000 PPI (pixels per inch) or higher, sharpening the captured ridge detail significantly.

OLED vs. LCD Compatibility

Optical in-display sensors require OLED panels because OLED pixels emit their own light. LCD screens need an additional backlight layer, which blocks the reflected signal path. This is one reason budget LCD phones still rely on side-mounted or rear capacitive readers rather than in-display solutions, a tradeoff GSMArena’s biometric glossary explains in detail. It is also why capacitive designs, despite being older technology, still hold 26.1% of the overall market, worth $1.10 billion in 2025 according to DataIntelo.

Why Are Ultrasonic Sensors More Accurate?

Ultrasonic in-display fingerprint sensors are more accurate than optical designs because they emit high-frequency sound pulses that penetrate beneath the skin’s surface, reading the sub-dermal layer where fingerprint ridges originate, not just the outer epidermal texture.

Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Sense ID ultrasonic platform is the most commercially prominent example. It functions reliably through water, light sweat, and minor surface abrasions, conditions that cause optical sensors to fail. The sensor works equally well with dry or wet fingers, which is a real-world advantage that matters, and it’s a major reason ultrasonic technology is projected to grow at a 15.02% CAGR through 2031, according to Mordor Intelligence.

The physics behind ultrasonic sensing also enable pressure detection. Because the sensor reads acoustic impedance differences, how sound waves reflect differently off ridges versus valleys, it generates a true 3D map of the fingerprint. This makes spoofing with a 2D photograph or silicone mold significantly harder. Larger sensor size compounds this benefit: as Qualcomm’s Alex Katouzian told CNET, “the bigger size also gives the phone a clearer image of the fingerprint and lets it map even more parts of the finger.”

How Does AI Improve Accuracy?

AI improves in-display fingerprint sensor accuracy by running on-device neural networks that continuously refine the stored biometric template each time you authenticate successfully. The sensor does not just match, it learns.

Traditional fingerprint matching used fixed minutiae-based algorithms, comparing specific ridge endpoints and bifurcations, an approach documented in the ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 data standard for biometric interchange. Modern systems from Samsung, Apple (for its under-display Touch ID research), and Synaptics layer convolutional neural networks on top of that baseline. These networks identify spatial relationships across the entire fingerprint image, not just discrete points, so the match holds up better against partial prints or rotated placements.

On-device processing is essential here. Biometric data is handled by a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), a secure, isolated chip partition, so the template never leaves the device. This aligns with standards set by the FIDO Alliance’s biometric certification specifications, which require local processing for FIDO2-compliant authenticators, and it echoes the measurement rigor NIST applies when it evaluates matching technologies for federal use. As biometric security connects to broader questions of digital identity protection, on-device AI processing is increasingly the regulatory baseline, not just a feature, in much the same way the CFPB and Federal Reserve treat data localization as a baseline expectation in financial identity verification.

Adaptive Template Updates

Each successful unlock adds a slightly updated fingerprint map to the stored template pool. After roughly 15 to 20 successful reads, the system has a statistically rich composite that accounts for seasonal skin changes, minor cuts, and age-related ridge flattening. This is why a sensor that feels inconsistent in week one often improves noticeably by week three.

What Hardware Changes Are Driving Accuracy Gains?

Physical hardware changes, more than algorithm tweaks, are the primary driver of accuracy improvements in the in-display fingerprint sensor category. Three specific advances stand out: larger active sensing areas, faster signal processors, and thinner sensor modules.

Larger sensing areas capture more of the fingerprint in a single press. Qualcomm’s Gen 3 Sonic sensor covers 8 x 8 mm, compared to the original Gen 1’s 4 x 9 mm, and the architecture supports multi-finger detection. Wider coverage means the system succeeds even when a finger is placed off-center, which is among the most common real-world failure modes. Qualcomm’s Katouzian summed up the physical logic behind that expansion to CNET: a larger sensor “gives the phone a clearer image of the fingerprint and lets it map even more parts of the finger.”

Sensor module thickness has also dropped significantly. Thinner sensors fit closer to the display glass, reducing the signal path distance and improving the sharpness of the captured image or acoustic return. This matters especially for ultrasonic designs, where signal attenuation over distance directly affects resolution. The push toward thinner devices, a trend tracked by IDC’s 2024 smartphone hardware report, has actually accelerated sensor miniaturization. That miniaturization is also part of why smartphone fingerprint sensor revenue climbed more than 10% year-over-year in Q4 2025, according to TechInsights, as both ultrasonic and optical demand rose in tandem.

These hardware gains are also showing up in wearables. Just as wearable technology is transforming health tracking, biometric sensor precision from smartphones is migrating into smartwatches and fitness bands that rely on similar photonic and acoustic principles.

What’s Next for In-Display Fingerprint Sensors?

The next frontier for the in-display fingerprint sensor is whole-display sensing: embedding the biometric reader across the entire screen rather than a fixed zone. Samsung and BOE Technology have demonstrated prototype panels where any touch point on the screen can serve as an authentication surface.

Whole-display sensing eliminates the cognitive friction of finding the sensor zone, which remains the single largest usability complaint about current designs. It also enables multi-finger authentication, which analysts at Counterpoint Research project will become a standard security tier on flagship devices by 2027.

Pressure-sensitive ultrasonic arrays may also enable liveness detection, confirming that the finger is attached to a living hand by reading pulse signals or sub-surface blood flow patterns. This would make in-display authentication significantly harder to defeat with artificial fingers or cadaveric samples, a concern that regulators and standards bodies like NIST track closely as biometric authentication expands into banking apps from institutions such as Chase and SoFi. The convergence of biometrics with broader platform security, including developments discussed in our coverage of how quantum computing will change everyday technology, means fingerprint authentication will need to keep pace with rapidly evolving threat models.

Mid-range adoption is also accelerating. Chipmakers like MediaTek are integrating optical fingerprint support into mid-tier SoCs, meaning the in-display fingerprint sensor will be a standard feature in devices priced under $300 within the next two years, according to analyst projections covered by The Verge’s smartphone technology desk. That downmarket push lines up with overall category growth: total smartphone fingerprint sensor revenue rose more than 10% year-over-year in Q4 2025, per TechInsights.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is an in-display fingerprint sensor as accurate as a physical fingerprint reader?

Not quite yet for optical designs, but ultrasonic in-display sensors now approach the accuracy of capacitive physical readers. Ultrasonic models achieve false rejection rates below 1%, while traditional capacitive sensors sit around 0.5%. The gap is narrowing rapidly with each hardware generation, and capacitive sensors still hold 26.1% of the market in 2025 largely on the strength of that accuracy edge, according to DataIntelo.

Why does my in-display fingerprint sensor fail more often when my hands are wet?

Optical sensors fail in wet conditions because water scatters the reflected light used to image the fingerprint, producing a blurry, unreadable signal. Ultrasonic sensors are far less affected because sound waves penetrate water and skin similarly. If wet-hand reliability is important to you, choose a device with a Qualcomm Snapdragon Sense ID ultrasonic sensor.

Does the in-display fingerprint sensor store my fingerprint in the cloud?

No. Fingerprint data is processed and stored entirely on-device inside a Trusted Execution Environment. This is a hardware-enforced secure enclave that the operating system cannot access directly. FIDO Alliance certification requires this local-only architecture for compliant biometric authenticators, and NIST’s fingerprint program supports the broader measurement standards that underpin these evaluations.

Which phones have the most accurate in-display fingerprint sensors right now?

Devices running Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 with the third-generation Sonic sensor consistently rank highest for accuracy and wet-finger performance. These include the Samsung Galaxy S25 series and several flagship Android devices from OnePlus and Xiaomi. Optical sensors in phones from Oppo and Vivo have also improved substantially with 1,000 PPI modules.

Can an in-display fingerprint sensor be fooled by a fake finger?

Optical sensors can be defeated by high-quality 2D prints or thin silicone molds in controlled tests, though real-world attacks remain rare. Ultrasonic sensors are significantly harder to spoof because they require a 3D sub-dermal acoustic signature, not just a surface image. Liveness detection, detecting blood flow beneath the skin, is the next layer of anti-spoofing protection in development.

Will in-display fingerprint sensors replace Face ID technology?

They are more likely to coexist than to replace each other. Fingerprint sensors are faster in many contexts and work under masks or in bright sunlight where face recognition struggles. Most flagship manufacturers, including Samsung and Xiaomi, already ship devices with both modalities. The trend is toward multi-factor biometric systems rather than single-method authentication. For context on how AI and security are reshaping authentication broadly, see our article on how AI is changing the way we interact with technology.

Which technology segment is growing fastest in the fingerprint sensor market?

Ultrasonic sensors are the fastest-growing segment, with a projected CAGR of 15.02% from 2025 to 2031, according to Mordor Intelligence. Optical sensors still hold the largest overall share at 48.6%, per Credence Research, but ultrasonic adoption is closing the gap in flagship devices.

Are in-display fingerprint sensors regulated by any government standards body?

In the United States, the National Institute of Standards and Technology evaluates fingerprint matching technologies and helps set measurement and interoperability standards, including ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011. These standards inform how vendors format and exchange biometric data, though individual smartphone manufacturers still control their own authentication implementations. Financial regulators like the CFPB also weigh in indirectly, since banking apps from institutions such as Chase and SoFi increasingly rely on device-level biometric authentication for login and identity verification, similar to how a FICO Score underpins credit decisions rather than being a direct regulatory requirement itself.

Does screen size or phone price affect fingerprint sensor accuracy?

Generally, yes. Flagship phones with larger ultrasonic sensor arrays, like Qualcomm’s Gen 3 Sonic sensor, outperform budget devices using smaller or older optical modules. MediaTek and other chipmakers are pushing higher-resolution optical sensors into mid-range and sub-$300 phones, narrowing the accuracy gap between price tiers.

What’s the real-world cost difference between optical and ultrasonic sensors?

Consider a device that uses a standard optical sensor. If the sensor module costs $0.85 and the ultrasonic module costs $3.10, the difference is $2.25 per unit. Now factor in market share: optical sensors held 48.6% of the in-display fingerprint sensor market in 2024, while ultrasonic made up a smaller share. Yet with a 15.02% projected CAGR from 2025 to 2031, ultrasonic adoption is accelerating. Over time, economies of scale will likely narrow this cost gap. The higher upfront cost of ultrasonic sensors is currently offset by their superior reliability and performance.

Who benefits most from improved in-display sensor accuracy?

If you have a 620 credit score and need about $8,000 to consolidate debt, your financial stability hinges on reliable device access. You may rely on a mobile banking app daily. A sensor that fails during a critical transaction, like a payment or two-factor authentication, can delay financial decisions. Choosing a smartphone with an ultrasonic sensor, like the Samsung Galaxy S25, reduces that risk. With a false rejection rate below 1%, and reliable performance in sweat or rain, it’s a practical choice. Even if the phone costs $100 more, the lower failure rate avoids the stress and time loss of repeated attempts. For someone with limited credit flexibility, avoiding a failed login that could trigger a security hold is not just convenient, it’s financially prudent.