Skip to content

Asignio

Dual biometric (facial and handwriting-signature) passwordless authentication platform aimed at phishing-resistant, replay-resistant login and step-up verification.

Visit Website ↗ + Add to Compare
42/100Emerging / Unranked

Overview

Asignio provides passwordless, phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication built around a dual-biometric factor: users draw a personal "sign" (a handwritten gesture combining shapes and/or characters) on a touch-enabled device while the system simultaneously captures facial-recognition and handwriting-dynamics data. The company’s pitch is that combining two biometric signals collected in a single motion makes each login attempt inherently harder to replay, phish, or deepfake than a single-factor biometric or a push-notification MFA prompt, since an attacker would need to forge both the handwriting dynamics and a live facial match simultaneously.

Founded in 2013 and based in Sedro-Woolley, Washington, Asignio has stayed a small, founder-led company rather than scaling through large venture rounds — public funding trackers put its total disclosed raise in the low single-digit millions. It positions the technology as an add-on layer for existing IAM platforms (the company cites integrations with Okta and Ping) rather than a full identity-platform replacement, aiming at use cases like account onboarding, step-up authentication, and account recovery where deepfake and phishing resistance matter most.

As a small, low-profile vendor, Asignio has limited independent validation beyond its own marketing and a handful of trade-press writeups; CISOs evaluating it should treat the phishing-resistance and anti-deepfake claims as vendor-asserted pending their own testing, though the underlying dual-biometric mechanism is a legitimate architectural approach also explored by larger identity vendors.

Innovation Matrix Assessment

Innovation Velocity 4/10

Small team (reported around a dozen employees) with limited publicly documented release cadence; no evidence of a fast, well-communicated product roadmap beyond baseline platform integrations (Okta, Ping).

Operational Value 5/10

The dual-biometric (handwriting plus facial) capture mechanism is architecturally sound and addresses a real replay/deepfake gap in single-factor biometric MFA, but the company has not published independent operational-scale deployment data.

Market Momentum 3/10

Total disclosed funding is in the low single-digit millions with no major round since founding in 2013, and the company has not disclosed customer counts or revenue figures, suggesting modest commercial traction relative to category peers.

Category Disruption 5/10

The dual-biometric-in-one-gesture approach is a genuinely different authentication mechanism than typical push-MFA or single-factor biometrics, though it remains a niche approach rather than one seeing broad category adoption.

Real-World Efficacy 3/10

No independent third-party testing, breach data, or named enterprise case studies were found; efficacy claims (phishing-proof, hacking-proof) are vendor-asserted marketing language that should be treated skeptically until independently verified.

Enduring Relevance 5/10

Phishing-resistant, deepfake-resistant authentication is an increasingly relevant CISO priority as AI-generated attacks against voice and video verification grow, which keeps Asignio's core premise relevant even though its market traction is limited.

Why CISOs Should Care

Offers a phishing- and deepfake-resistant authentication factor for high-risk flows (onboarding, step-up, account recovery) that layers onto an existing IAM stack rather than requiring a platform swap.

What Makes It Different

Combines two biometric signals — handwriting dynamics and facial recognition — captured in a single user gesture, rather than relying on a single biometric factor or a phone-based push prompt.

The Matrix Verdict

42/100 — EMERGING / UNRANKED

A small, under-the-radar vendor with a defensible technical differentiator against deepfake and replay attacks, but thin independent validation and modest funding/traction keep it a niche add-on rather than a core IAM decision for most enterprises today.

Editorial Note: Claims vs. Verified Findings

Phishing-proof and hacking-proof claims are vendor marketing language and are not independently verified. Founding year, HQ location, and funding totals come from third-party data aggregators (PitchBook, CB Insights) rather than company disclosure, and these aggregators disagree with each other on the exact funding amount, so treat it as approximate.

Sources