While the FNMR values can only be truly interpreted with other factors, our results show that the device has rather large FNMR, but not exceptionally. Compared to its "smaller sibling", the iEvo Micro, the performance is noticeably better. As such, the device is in the better part of the category.
Considering the ARAD values - the required time for a successful identification - the device performed averagely. Compared to the iEvo Micro, identification times are longer, the manufacturer traded speed for more reliable identification. Nevertheless, the device can still be conveniently used with these values.
The iEvo Ultimate is an aesthetic, well designed device that befits the demands of our age. The quality of the materials used is good and the plastic casing radiates elegance. It can find it's place in any environment.
Although it depends on the actual usage, the time spent operating the device is a rather important parameter along with the ratio of (falsely) rejected identification attempts. Another question is how much time and effort is required for the enrolment of a user, and what percent of the possible users cannot be enrolled at all.
We sought answers for these questions and our experiences were mostly pleasant.
Enrolment times varied within a rather wide range, but the even the longest values weren't so critical. The process should be planned such that upon mass enrolment, there is adequate time buffer to handle the occasional longer enrolment. It has to be, however, noted, that there were no rejected enrolments.
During our stress tests, the device fared rather well. It resisted many disturbing factor with little exception, but even those did not render the device unusable. Only dusty environments and powder contaminants reduced performance enough to hamper normal operation, so in such environments, care should be taken.
You can further read about the device in the following documents: