A successful demonstration does not tell you which attendance method will work at your factory gate. The useful comparison follows a real arrival all the way to an approved attendance record, including what happens when the attempt fails.
Face and fingerprint systems are both biometric approaches. Their capture conditions differ, but both still need an employee record, a rule for interpreting the event and someone responsible for exceptions. Replacing the reader without reviewing those steps can leave the same month-end problem in a new dashboard.
Compare the event you need to record
Start with the decision: do you need a check-in, a paired entry and exit, access permission, or a reviewed attendance summary? These are different outputs. A gate event does not establish continuous work or authorize a payroll deduction on its own.
Write down where employees actually enter and leave, which shifts use each route and how temporary transfers are handled. Compare suppliers against the same routes and roster. Otherwise, one system may appear better simply because it was tested at an easier door.
Test each capture method fairly
For fingerprint devices, include the conditions employees encounter during normal work and follow the selected manufacturer's cleaning and usage instructions. Record retries and the reason for a failed attempt rather than assuming every problem comes from worn fingerprints.
For face attendance, include the real walking direction, lighting, crowding and permitted protective equipment. NIST evaluates face-image quality factors including pose, illumination and resolution; its research is not an accuracy certificate for a proposed PGAK installation. See NIST's image-quality evaluation.
Keep a separate, authorized reference log during the trial. Distinguish a missed event from a wrong identity, a duplicate event and a correct event assigned to the wrong shift. Combining them into one success percentage can hide the error that matters most to payroll.
Make fallback part of the comparison
Ask each supplier to demonstrate a failed attempt. Who sees it, how does the employee report it, and what evidence supports a correction? A manual route is useful when it has an accountable reviewer; it becomes difficult to audit when staff share a supervisor login.
Do not require people to remove necessary protective equipment in an unsafe area to satisfy a camera. Assess a suitable capture location or another attendance method. Include employees whose capture needs cannot be met by the proposed biometric route in the operating plan.
Follow the record into payroll
Request a sample export containing the employee identifier, event time, shift assignment, reviewed status and relevant correction reference. The receiving payroll process should decide payable treatment from approved rules, not from an unexplained face-match score.
Use the same sample roster for both options. Include a missed exit, approved leave, a duplicate event and an overnight shift. Ask the payroll owner to reconcile the results. The attendance-to-payroll guide explains the handoff in more detail.
Compare the written project scope
List readers or cameras, processing, installation, software, integration, support and any required site changes. State what is included in enrolment, training, correction review and later employee changes. Check contract terms instead of assuming a particular per-device or per-employee pricing model.
Existing CCTV reuse should be a finding from the assessment, not the opening promise. Review the camera compatibility requirements and record any limitations in the proposal. Neither contactless capture nor a familiar camera brand proves that the complete attendance workflow is supported.
Agree acceptance conditions before the pilot begins: the situations to test, the reference evidence, the reviewer and what would cause the project to be revised. Choose the method that meets those conditions with manageable exceptions. Keep the current approved process available until the replacement has been accepted.
For an AI Alerto by PGAK assessment, bring the gate layout, current device details, shift examples and the specific failure you want to resolve. This makes the next discussion about a practical workflow rather than a claim that one technology always wins.
Questions before the assessment
Is face attendance always better than fingerprint attendance?
No. Compare the methods under your actual gate conditions and include rejected attempts, incorrect matches, exceptions and payroll review. A contactless method still needs suitable capture, enrolment and an agreed fallback.
Can existing CCTV automatically become an attendance system?
No. The camera view, model, stream, processing and attendance workflow must be checked. A usable security recording does not by itself establish reliable identity matching or correct payroll records.