Prove proves the phone. PasskeyBridge proves the whole identity, every time it speaks.
Prove built a category around phone-centric identity assurance. PasskeyBridge agrees the phone is a critical signal—and treats it as one input into a continuous, post-quantum, zero-PII identity threat response platform that also covers passkeys, verifiable credentials, and cross-app revocation cascades.
Where the overlap is real
Prove and PasskeyBridge agree on a foundational thesis: the mobile carrier network is one of the most under-used trust signals in modern identity, and SIM-swap and port-out attacks are routinely undetected by IdPs and KYC tools alone. Both platforms ingest carrier-derived data, both surface tenure and SIM-change events, and both can be wired into step-up flows.
If your problem is narrowly 'I need to bind a phone number to an account and detect SIM swaps at sign-in', either platform can solve it. The interesting question is what happens at the boundaries of that problem—and that is where the architectures diverge.
Where the architectures diverge
Prove is, by design, phone-first. The product surface, the integrations, and the commercial model orbit around the mobile number as the trust anchor. That is a coherent strategy, and for many use cases it is the correct one.
PasskeyBridge is signal-agnostic. Carrier data is one of seven first-class signal classes—alongside FIDO2 passkeys with DPoP binding, W3C verifiable credentials, CAEP/SSF cross-app session events, SCIM lifecycle deltas, ISPM posture telemetry from your IdP, and physics-anchored attestations (PIST). The phone matters, but it is not the only thing that matters, and a modern threat-response layer needs to reason about all of them in the same policy engine.
- Seven signal classes, one cascade engine—not seven point products.
- Hybrid post-quantum signatures (ML-DSA-65) on every attestation; replay-resistant past CRQC.
- Zero-PII storage model: identifiers hashed with keyed HMAC-SHA-256 under a server-held pepper—non-enumerable, not merely digested.
- Edge-first verification, with latency published live at /developers/playground.
- CAEP/SSF receiver dispatches in-process revocation cascades—no fan-out delay.
Post-quantum is not a marketing checkbox here
We sign every attestation with both a classical scheme and ML-DSA-65 (NIST FIPS 204), and we keep ML-DSA-87 deployable for the highest-assurance contexts. The signatures are JCS-canonicalised so verifiers cannot be tricked by serialisation drift. This matters because identity attestations are evidence—they need to remain verifiable years after issuance, including after a cryptographically relevant quantum computer arrives.
Prove does not, to our knowledge, ship hybrid PQC signatures on its identity assertions today. That may change, and we'll update this page when it does. But it changes the procurement conversation today: if your security architecture team has a post-2030 horizon, the answer matters.
Verifiable credentials and BYOK
PasskeyBridge issues and verifies W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0, including SD-JWT-VC, with OpenID4VP support and a Bring-Your-Own-Key model so credentials remain portable and tenant-controlled. Our PBWallet SDK lets relying parties verify presentations without a runtime dependency on us.
Prove operates a closed identity graph. That has commercial advantages—single source of truth, single integration—and architectural disadvantages: it is harder to interoperate with EUDI Wallet, eIDAS 2.0 trust frameworks, or downstream agent-to-agent (A2A) identity protocols that assume open, standards-based credentials.
Latency, again
Low decision latency is a non-negotiable for in-the-hot-path identity controls, and it is the reason we run an edge-first 'Gatehouse' architecture rather than centralising on origin servers. Phone-centric verification flows that round-trip to a central registry and back are perfectly fine for sign-in, but break the moment you try to apply them to every authenticated request, every agent action, or every credential presentation.
If your roadmap includes agent-mediated identity, A2A trust establishment, or per-request policy decisions, the latency budget is a feature, not an optimisation note.
How to think about the choice
If you need a phone-centric identity authority with mature US carrier integrations and a long track record in financial-services onboarding, Prove is a credible choice and the comparison is fair.
If you need a continuous identity threat response layer that treats the phone as one signal among many, ships hybrid PQC by default, stores no plaintext PII, and runs in the hot path—PasskeyBridge is the architectural fit. Both can coexist; we have customers who do exactly that.
Capability matrix
Side-by-side: PasskeyBridge vs Prove. Evaluated against publicly documented product capabilities.
Evaluation based on publicly documented Prove product capabilities as of Q2 2026. Prove is a registered trademark of Prove Identity, Inc.; this comparison is independent and not endorsed by Prove.
Frequently asked
- Does PasskeyBridge replace Prove?
- For the narrow phone-binding use case, yes—our carrier-signal pipeline covers SIM swap, port-out, tenure, and device-change detection. For the broader identity-threat surface, Prove was never trying to solve the same problem.
- Why is hybrid PQC important now?
- Identity attestations are long-lived evidence. A signature that is unverifiable in 2030 is worthless in a 2030 audit, regardless of what was true in 2026. Hybrid signing (classical + ML-DSA-65) lets the same artefact remain valid through the transition.
- Can we ingest signals from Prove and treat them as inputs?
- Yes. Anything you can express as a hashed identity signal can be normalised through shield-ingest and routed into the cascade engine. We don't require you to rip and replace.
- What does 'zero-PII' actually mean?
- We never persist primary identifiers in plaintext. Phone numbers, email and IP addresses, and subject identifiers are hashed at the edge with keyed HMAC-SHA-256 under a server-held pepper. Matching across signals stays possible because the digest is deterministic; reading them back does not, because the pepper never leaves our servers.
- Where do I see latency numbers I can trust?
- Our /developers/playground page runs real /health probes against production. You can fire single requests or 10x bursts and see the p50, p95, and p99 in your own browser. We do not publish numbers we cannot reproduce on demand.
See it on your own traffic
Spin up a tenant in under two minutes. Send your first signal, inspect the verifier response, and decide.