Research and analysis

Digital Identity Sectoral Analysis 2025

Published 14 May 2025

1. Executive summary

The Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (OfDIA), part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), has commissioned Oliver Wyman, Perspective Economics, Projects by IF and Survation to conduct a study of the digital identity sector in the UK. Building on the interim report published in December 2024, this report includes additional findings, including market adoption, innovation, and consumer attitudes to digital identity. The study finds:

The UK digital identity market

Sectoral structure and scale

• 266 firms operating in the UK digital identity market. Of these, 227 are dedicated providers focused on digital identity products and services, and 39 are diversified firms offering digital identity solutions alongside other services  

• These firms generated £2.1 billion annual revenue in 2023/2024, with £888 million Gross Value Added (GVA) and 10,246 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees  

• Approximately half of these firms are registered in London, with clusters in the South East (15% of firms and employment) and North West (9% of firms, 16% of employment)  

• Nearly half (49%) of firms operate at small or medium size (10 to 249 employees), representing significant mid-market provision in the sector  

• Of the 266 firms identified, 199 (75%) are headquartered in the United Kingdom, with strong international presence primarily from US-based firms  

• The UK sector is highly internationalised. We find that 34% of UK headquartered digital identity firms have a physical presence in international markets. A quarter (25%) of digital identity firms in the UK are headquartered internationally, suggesting the UK is an attractive location for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), particularly from US and European firms  

• Further, for the largest twenty firms that provide a breakdown of revenue by geographic market in their annual accounts, over half (57%) of this revenue is generated from international markets

Market capability and demand

• 69% of providers offer identity or attribute verification services, and half (51%) support digital identity creation and management  

• Key services include document verification (54%), identity management (50%), and biometrics (45%). A third (33%) offer solutions aligned to ‘trust services’ (e.g. digital signatures, seals and certificates)  

• The sector serves a wide range of industries. Review of web and customer data highlights strong demand from financial services (85% of providers), health and public sector (58%), and technology sectors (57%)

Market growth

• The sector demonstrates strong productivity, with GVA per employee (£86,600) approximately 56% higher than average UK employee estimates  

• Employment has grown consistently (average of 11.7% per annum) between 2020 – 2024  

Consumer attitudes

• 71% of individuals feel that they have at least some understanding of the concept of digital identity (24% ‘completely’, 24% ‘mostly’, 23% ‘somewhat’)  

• 44% of survey respondents reported that they had used a digital identity service at some point in their lives  

• The most common use cases for using a digital identity service, rather than a non-digital method, are ‘accessing online game or gambling accounts’ (38%), ‘applying for a credit card or loan online’ (36%) and ‘setting up and managing insurance policies’ (28%)  

• Privacy (79%) and security (79%) are the most important factors to users when using a digital identity service, followed by service provider reputation (76%), clarity on forms of evidence needed (76%), reliability (75%) and conformity to government standards (75%)  

• Timesaving and convenience were identified as the top benefits of digital identity services, with 75% of respondents reporting faster transactions compared to use of physical ID across popular use cases  

• The most common reason that people have not used a digital identity is lack of opportunity or perceived need to use one (63%). Some respondents reported actively choosing not to use digital identity when offered to them, for reasons of preference for other methods (9%), privacy (8%), security (7%), or uncertainty (7%)  

• Most respondents report experiencing no challenges using the most common digital identity services (61%). Where there are challenges, these most often relate to data privacy, technical issues or service complexity

2. Introduction

2.1 About this research

The government is enabling the use of trusted digital identity^{[footnote 1]} services in the UK. Digital identities give people other ways to securely prove things about themselves, such as who they are or what their age is, without having to present physical documents.  

This work is led by the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (OfDIA), which is part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). To understand the size and scale of the digital identity market and to examine current and potential take-up of digital identity solutions, a market analysis was required to:

• Develop an initial and shared understanding of how the digital identity market can be defined and measured: This includes firms that have been certified against the rules of the UK digital identity and attributes trust framework^{[footnote 2]} and providers whose service has been certified against additional rules for conducting Right to Work, Right to Rent and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. This analysis also identifies additional relevant firms offering products or services such as identity verification, and age and identity checks  

• Understand the size and scale of the market in the UK: The firms identified are combined into a single dataset to explore the size and scale of the sector through measures such as firm count, revenue, employment and external investment  

• Consider the growth opportunities for the digital identity market, and explore market dynamics: This explores growth trends, areas of demand, and market use cases for digital identity solutions  

• Explore innovation and adoption trends: This explores innovation trends (including research and development) and adoption patterns across different sectors, and factors influencing both development and implementation of digital identity solutions  

• Understand consumer attitudes towards digital identity: This explores consumer understanding and use of digital identity, as well as their understanding of benefits. It also explores why consumers are not using digital identity  

2.2 Summary of methodology

This section contains a brief outline of the research methodology. Greater methodological detail can be found at the start of each chapter.

The methodology consisted of 4 strands:

1. Market analysis: Perspective Economics developed a multi-stage methodology (as set out in Section 3) to identify and analyse 266 relevant companies active in the digital identity sector. The main findings on the UK digital identity market reported in this study are based on this analysis. Figures initially published in the interim report have since been updated for accuracy. This update was done in February 2025.  

2. Innovation analysis: Perspective Economics conducted additional analysis on UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) data for all 266 providers, with a direct focus on dedicated Digital Identity firms. Additional analysis was also undertaken exploring the adoption and benefits of digital identity solutions, as set out by market providers. This research was conducted in March 2025.  

3. Consumer Survey: Market research provider Survation conducted a survey of 3,561 British consumers between 18 and 66 years old, through 2 channels: online and telephone (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)) for individuals who lack devices and connectivity. The main findings on consumer attitudes reported in this study are based on the consumer survey data. Fieldwork was conducted between 9th January to 27th January 2025.  

4. Provider Survey: Oliver Wyman conducted an online survey of UK digital identity providers. The survey was distributed via the online Qualtrics platform to 234 digital identity providers, out of which 25 responded. Noting the small sample size, these findings have been used to better understand and interpret quantitative findings. Field work was conducted between 28th January to 14th February 2025.  

5. Qualitative interviews: Oliver Wyman conducted a more focused strand of qualitative research, with 21 in-depth interviews split across digital identity providers, relying parties and consumer groups. The interviews explored different perspectives on the UK digital identity market, including adoption trends, benefits, the role of certification, and inclusion. Interview transcripts were analysed for identification of key themes which have been used to better understand and interpret quantitative findings. Interviews took place during February and March 2025.

2.3 Acknowledgements

Oliver Wyman, Perspective Economics, Projects by IF and Survation would like to thank colleagues at OfDIA for their support and guidance throughout the study.

3. The UK Digital Identity Market

3.1 Scope and methodology

The UK’s digital identity sector, like other technology markets (such as the cyber security sector measured in the DSIT Cyber Security Sectoral Analysis), lacks a formal Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. This necessitates the development of a robust definitional framework to identify and measure relevant market activity. The research approach combines 2 key scoping considerations with a multi-stage methodology. These include:  

• High-level definition: Developed through OfDIA and industry consultation to establish clear boundaries of what constitutes ‘digital identity’  

• Functional scope: Firms must be UK-registered, commercially active, and provide digital identity products or services with identifiable revenue or employment 

The research methodology includes:  

Stage 1: Desk review and definitional scoping  

A comprehensive review of trust framework providers, industry events, and an initial web review to identify provider terminology and service offerings.  

Stage 2: Identification of providers  

Review of over 1 million active UK company descriptions, and use of web data review to develop an initial longlist with relevancy scoring and filtering.  

Stage 3: Taxonomy development  

The use of stakeholder workshops to validate definitional scope and to create and refine a digital identity sector taxonomy (see ‘Defining digital identity’ section).  

Stage 4: Market shortlisting  

All firms were matched against Companies House and web data, reviewed to confirm active status, and included in a final dataset for analysis and enrichment.  

Stage 5: Data enrichment  

The research team has used web data, company accounts, and proprietary datasets to develop a digital identity sectoral dataset, including key measures such as registered entity, size, location, revenue, employment, investment, and description data.  

Stage 6: Market analysis  

This document sets out an economic assessment of sector revenue, employment and Gross Value Added (GVA). This report presents an updated view (following the December 2024 interim assessment) on market size and definition, providing a snapshot of the UK’s digital identity landscape. This also includes additional coverage on the ecosystem analysis, including partnerships, innovation metrics and demand assessment.

3.2 Ecosystem

This section establishes a framework for understanding the UK’s digital identity ecosystem, setting out both the core market definition and the wider value chain. It provides a structured view of key market segments and activities, enabling analysis of the UK’s current capabilities and future opportunities in digital identity provision.

A digital identity sectoral taxonomy

As part of the research, we developed an initial definition to help identify and assess relevant market providers:

‘The digital identity sector provides solutions for creating, managing, and verifying digital representations of individuals. This enables secure, trusted, and effective proof of identity and attributes across online and in-person interactions, and a way to gain verified access to products and services.’

^{(Working definition, 2024)}

Further, the research team has also considered practical and wider applications for digital identity solutions that help to inform the definitional and scoping aspect of this research. This refers to where providers can help customers and individuals through:

• Creating, managing, and verifying digital identities, attributes and credentials for individuals and organisations.

• Providing authentication, authorisation and biometric solutions for secure access to digital services.

• Providing identity verification services to establish the authenticity of digital identities.

• Enabling regulatory and compliance checks, such as background screening, Right to Work verification, and DBS checks.

• Developing systems that give users control over their digital identity and data sharing.

Digital identity solutions have a range of direct benefits for organisations and users, such as:

• Ensuring compliance with privacy and data protection regulations and standards.

• Improving accessibility of digital services through inclusive identity solutions.

• Enhancing security measures to prevent identity fraud and unauthorised access.

• Streamlining identity processes to reduce friction in digital interactions.

The purpose of a sectoral taxonomy is to explore areas of product and service provision to help understand the strengths and capabilities of the market. The taxonomy was developed through identifying and reviewing digital identity firms in scope and analysing web data regarding product and service provision. This involved extraction and analysis of hundreds of unique keywords, and a workshop with OfDIA and the wider research team to identify areas of relevance, market knowledge, and policy context. Each company identified can offer multiple products or services, tagged against the taxonomy.

The taxonomy comprises 5 primary categories, each representing distinct but aligned capabilities across the identity lifecycle. This begins with foundational stages, such as creating or using a digital identity and configuring which attributes can be shared. It then moves to identity and attribute verification, which involves confirming an individual’s identity and validating key attributes or checks relevant to the process. The taxonomy also includes Trust Services (aligned to a ‘trust service provider’ definition). This typically includes eSignatures, certificates for website authentication, electronic seals and time stamps. We also consider the role of identity data and intermediary providers e.g. ensuring access to relevant data for checks, risk, fraud, credit, and analytical purposes.

^{Figure 1}

The taxonomy is summarised below, and set out in full in Annex A:

• Identity Foundations: infrastructure for creating, managing and storing digital identities, including Identity Issuance, Identity and Consent Management, and the wider role of Digital Wallets and Identity Services.

• Identity Verification: technologies and processes to verify individual and organisational identities, including Document Validation, Biometrics and Liveness Detection, Knowledge-Based and Social Verification.

• Attribute Verification: technologies and processes to validate specific characteristics or credentials, including Age Assurance, Professional and Credential Checks, Background Screening, and Financial and Address checks.

• Trust Services: services to provide trust in digital transactions, including Digital Signatures, seals and certificates, the role of website authentication, and wider governance and compliance tools (e.g. time stamps, registered delivery services).

• Identity Data and Intermediaries: services enabling data flow and integration, including data brokerage, orchestration, risk, fraud and credit data, and wider analytics.

It is worth noting that taxonomies in technology sectors require iterative refinement and can involve subjectivity regarding definitions and scope. The research team reviewed several data sources to understand how providers operate within the market and conducted an industry workshop in October 2024 to further develop and refine the methodology. This approach enables our analysis to explore the current market in a way that can be used by industry and policymakers. This taxonomy represents a point-in-time assessment that should continue to evolve alongside the digital identity ecosystem.

3.3 Market profile

This section sets out the size and scale of the UK’s digital identity sector.

We estimate that there are currently 266 firms active and registered within the UK as of March 2025^{[footnote 3]} providing digital identity products and services. We find 227 ‘dedicated’ firms (firms that only or mainly provide digital identity related products or services), and 39 ‘diversified’ firms (firms that provide digital identity among other products or services, to the extent that the study captures the proportional activity only (i.e. number of people working in a digital identity role only).

Products and services offered

Within this study, we consider the products and services offered by providers mapped against the taxonomy. We find that a typical (median) provider offers products or services aligned to 5 taxonomy sub-categories. For example, a firm may develop digital identities and offer verification and trust services. Further, there are several partnerships and collaborations within the market, where vendors offer a shared portfolio of identity solutions to customers.

We find 1,577 unique markers against the 266 providers (a taxonomy tag is applied if sufficient trading data is found). This is informed using web and text data for each firm, and the use of a text classification model. Given the breadth of provision (where providers offer a range of solutions), we classify companies using multiple tags to provide greater granularity regarding provision.

^{Figure 2: Taxonomy mentions (taxonomy categories)}

Identity Verification	69% (186)
Attribute Verification	59% (159)
Identity Foundations (excluding Identity Services only)	51% (138)
Trust Services	33% (90)
Identity Data and Intermediaries (includes Data Brokerage and Analytics only)	24% (66)

^{Source: Perspective Economics (n = 266)}

Figure 2 highlights that:

• 69% of the providers are involved in identity or attribute verification, underpinned by the role of schemes such as the UK digital identity and attributes trust framework.

• Just over half (51%) of providers are involved in issuing usable and reusable digital identities or supporting with identity data consent and privacy management.

• A third (33%) offer solutions aligned to ‘trust services’ (i.e. offer solutions such as digital signatures, seals and certificates).

• Approximately a quarter (24%) provide identity data or analytics e.g. data brokers sharing identity data for supporting with financial transactions, etc.

^{Figure 3: Product and services mentioned by providers (taxonomy subcategories)}

^{Source: Perspective Economics (n = 1,577 mentions of product or service provision mapped against the sub-taxonomy across 266 providers). This suggests an average of c. 5-6 taxonomy ‘hits’ per firm.}

Figure 3 provides additional granularity for the percentage of providers that mention providing products or services aligned to each sub-category. This highlights that document-based verification (54%) is the most provided approach by providers, followed by identity management (50%), biometrics and liveness (45%), and financial and address verification (39%). In the UK market, background screening (29%) and professional and credential verification (28%) are also frequently mentioned by providers. We note that age assurance (23%) is also a recurrent category.

We also find a lower incidence of mentions regarding identity issuance (12%), digital wallets (10%), social verification (5%), and data brokerage (4%) suggesting either a higher level of market concentration (e.g. large vendors with established wallet offerings), or lower levels of adoption (e.g. social verification).

Location

Figure 4 sets out the registered UK location of the 266 digital identity firms identified.

^{Figure 4: Registered location of UK digital identity firms}

^{Source: Perspective Economics (n = 266)}

As shown in Figure 5, most firms are registered in London (52%) followed by the South East (15%). However, the data also suggests firm level activity in the North West (which accounts for 9% of firms, but 15% of the sector’s employment as explored in the next section).

^{Figure 5: Registered location of UK digital identity firms by region (count)}

London	137 (52%)
South East	39 (15%)
North West	24 (9%)
South West	13 (5%)
East of England	13 (5%)
West Midlands	8 (3%)
Wales	9 (3%)
Scotland	8 (3%)
Yorkshire and the Humber	6 (2%)
East Midlands	6 (2%)
North East	2 (1%)
Northern Ireland	1 (0%)

^{Source: Perspective Economics (n = 266)}

The research team also has found that, of the 266 digital identity firms in scope, 199 (75%) are headquartered or were founded in the United Kingdom, with the other 67 (25%) headquartered or founded internationally.

Most of the internationally headquartered firms are based in the United States (43) with the remainder from countries such as Australia, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Germany and 15 other countries.

We find that 67 dedicated UK headquartered firms (34%) have a physical presence in international markets. This figure is likely to be considerably higher with respect to actual export activity (e.g. international contracts serviced from the UK). This figure is also higher than that seen within the UK Cyber Security Sectoral Analysis (2025), which suggests that 17%^{[footnote 4]} of cyber security businesses have a physical international presence.

The ability to service international markets is a key tenet for growth within the UK digital identity ecosystem. Further, the UK is also an attractive location for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) entrants seeking to develop sales offices, and research and development activities.

As shown in Figure 6, we find 147 international office locations for these 67 providers across 46 countries. This includes 30 UK headquartered firms with a European Union / European Economic Area (EEA) (45%) presence, as well as 27 firms with a presence in the United States (40%), 8 in the United Arab Emirates (12%), and 8 in Australia (12%).

^{Figure 6: UK headquartered companies with a physical presence in other countries}

^{Source: Perspective Economics (n = 67) . Darker colour denotes greater office count}

3.4 Economic estimates

This section explores digital identity related revenue, Gross Value Added (GVA), and employment. It also examines historic growth, and initial market growth scenarios.

Company registrations

Figure 7 sets out the running count of active firms by founded date. This highlights that the ecosystem contains a mix of established firms (registered several decades ago, with strong presence in areas such as background screening and financial data), as well as sustained growth in new providers in areas such as identity verification and trust services since the 2000s.

^{Figure 7: Running count of active firms by founded date}

^{Source: Perspective Economics (n = 266) (Please note that as this is a baseline study, this only reflects firms active as of 2024, and does not account for any firms that may have previously ceased trading in the period)}

Estimated company size

This section examines the size distribution of these firms based on their UK operations. We also note that many firms will have varying global and UK footprints e.g. a multinational firm may have a ‘large’ global presence with thousands of employees, but a small research and development office in the UK.

^{Figure 8: Digital identity companies by size}

Micro	39%
Small	35%
Medium	14%
Large	12%

^{Source: Perspective Economics (n = 266)}

The size estimates highlight:

• A significant mid-market presence: Nearly half (49%) of firms operate at small or medium size (10 to 249 employees), representing significant mid-market provision in the sector.

• A maturing ecosystem: The proportion of micro-sized firms (39%) sits below the UK business average of 81% and the cyber security sector average of 55%, indicating a market where most companies have scaled beyond initial startup phase.

• International investment: The UK is an attractive location for major international players in digital identity, with 20% of firms identified being globally ‘large’ enterprises. These multinationals maintain varying UK footprints, from dedicated research and development facilities to full-scale service delivery operations.

Estimated employment

We estimate that there are 10,246 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) working in a digital identity related role in the UK across the 266 firms identified. We estimate that most of these roles 82% (8,379) are employed within ‘dedicated’ firms suggesting a specialist market. The research team has reviewed company web data, accounts data (Companies House), and survey responses to estimate relevant headcount in wider diversified firms (e.g. large consultancies with a digital identity offering).

Estimated digital identity related employment can be segmented by a range of variables such as company size, region, international and domestic markers.

Estimated headcount by size

Size	FTE Count
Large	6,017 (59%)
Medium	2,637 (26%)
Small	1,262 (12%)
Micro	330 (3%)

Estimated headcount by region

Employment is highly concentrated within London registered firms (42%); however, there are some signs of significant clusters in the North West (16%), South East (15%) and South West (8%). There are some regions in the UK with much lower-than-expected concentrations of activity, including Scotland, East of England, West Midlands, North East, and Northern Ireland.

Region	FTE Count
London	4,323 (42%)
North West England	1,644 (16%)
South East England	1,586 (15%)
South West England	828 (8%)
Wales	587 (6%)
East Midlands	510 (5%)
Yorkshire and the Humber	461 (4%)
Scotland	158 (2%)
East of England	94 (1%)
West Midlands, North East England, Northern Ireland	< 1%

Estimated headcount by domestic and international marker

The UK attracts considerable interest from international firms, and these firms (67) account for around 38% of the UK digital identity workforce. This is primarily driven by US firms, with some European firms also interacting with the UK market and engaging with schemes such as the UK digital identity and attributes trust framework.

Type	FTE Count
UK Headquartered	6,383 (62%)
International (FDI)	3,863 (38%)

Estimated headcount by taxonomy offering

Analysis of employment across the digital identity taxonomy categories shows how jobs are distributed between primary specialisations (‘best fit’) and broader service provision (‘multiple tag’). We present both figures to reflect the diverse product and service offerings among providers.

Identity Verification is the largest category for employment, with 4,690 roles (46%) in firms primarily focused in this area. Most employees (80%) work within providers that offer some form of identity verification or attribute verification. Trust Services and Identity Data and Intermediaries show smaller specialist employment (717 and 622 jobs respectively) but are significant in wider provision, with 26% of employees working in firms providing Trust Services, and 65% in those offering identity data and intermediary solutions.

Taxonomy	Best Fit	Multiple Tag
Identity Foundations	2,699 (26%)	4,515 (44%)
Identity Verification	4,690 (46%)	8,220 (80%)
Attribute Verification	1,518 (15%)	7,786 (76%)
Trust Services	717 (7%)	2,695 (26%)
Identity Data and Intermediaries	622 (6%)	6,663 (65%)

Estimated Revenue and GVA

In the most recent financial year (2023/2024), we estimate that total annual digital identity related revenue reached £2,113 million across the 266 firms. This relates to revenue attributable to digital identity activity only.

Estimated revenue by size

Revenue is highly concentrated among the large providers (69% of all revenue). Small and micro providers make up 8% of sectoral revenue, with several companies at pre-revenue stage.

Size	Revenue	Percentage (may not sum due to rounding)
Large	£1,463m	69%
Medium	£477m	23%
Small	£139m	7%
Micro	£33m	2%

Revenue by region

Digital identity revenue shows regional variation across the UK. London remains the largest market concentration with £847 million (40%) of sector revenue. However, the North West demonstrates strength as the second largest regional hub, generating £405 million (19%) of UK revenue - highlighting its importance as a digital identity cluster. The South East and South West each account for 11% and 10% of revenue (£237 million and £213 million respectively), with Wales showing notable presence at £199 million (9%).

Region	Digital identity related revenue (Estimate)	Percentage
London	£847m	40%
North West England	£405m	19%
South East England	£238m	11%
South West England	£213m	10%
Wales	£199m	9%
East Midlands	£117m	6%
Yorkshire and the Humber	£54m	3%
Scotland	£25m	1%
East of England	£10m	0%
West Midlands	£4m	0%
North East England	<£1m	0%
Northern Ireland	<£1m	0%

Estimated revenue by taxonomy offering

Analysis of revenue across the digital identity taxonomy categories highlights how revenue is distributed between primary specialisations (‘best fit’). Identity Verification is the largest taxonomy category for revenue, with £1,053 million (50%) generated by firms primarily focused in this area. Combined with Attribute Verification (£281 million, 13%), verification services account for nearly two-thirds of all sector revenue (63%).

Identity Foundations represents a significant proportion of sector revenue (£508 million, 24%), whilst Trust Services and Identity Data and Intermediaries show smaller specialist revenue (£136 million and £134 million respectively, both 6%) among best-fit provision.

Taxonomy	Revenue	Percentage
Identity Foundations	£508m	24%
Identity Verification	£1,053m	50%
Attribute Verification	£281m	13%
Trust Services	£136m	6%
Identity Data and Intermediaries	£134m	6%

International Revenue

The research team has undertaken analysis of 20 dedicated digital identity firms that provide full financial accounts and provide a breakdown of annual revenue by geographic market. These consist of some of the largest firms in the UK sector, as larger firms typically are required to submit greater levels of detail in their annual accounts to Companies House for audit and review purposes. We find that these 20 firms collectively generated combined revenue of £964 million in the most recent financial year. This accounts for almost half of all UK digital identity revenues (46%).

The revenue breakdown across major markets demonstrates the global footprint of UK digital identity firms. Our analysis of this combined known revenue suggests that revenue for these providers is typically generated from:

• UK market: £413 million (43% of total revenue)

• US market: £249 million (26% of total revenue)

• EU market: £123 million (13% of total revenue)

• Rest of World: £178 million (18% of total revenue)

The data reveals a highly internationalised sector, with 57% of revenue generated from export activities. This export orientation indicates international competitiveness among some of the largest providers and suggests UK digital identity solutions are valued in global markets. However, we note this only reflects a small sample of providers, and further research would be merited to explore revenue composition for the full market where possible.

The international activity of UK digital identity firms appears to demonstrate:

• Established global players: Several of the largest UK providers have built substantial international operations. For example, GB Group (GBG) generates approximately 70% of its revenue from international markets (according to its Annual Report 2024), demonstrating how UK expertise in identity verification can be scaled globally.

• Innovative exports: Yoti, for example, has seen strong adoption of its digital identity solutions primarily in European markets, indicating demand for innovation across global markets.

• Domestic specialists: Some firms may also be predominantly focused on UK-specific requirements such as Right to Work checks and compliance verification and are valuable in supporting the domestic and international markets with specialised solutions.

Gross Value Added (GVA)

GVA is used as a measure of productivity (at a firm level, or above). It captures the sum of a firm’s gross profit, employee remuneration, amortisation and depreciation. In this respect, any increase in GVA can highlight an improvement in the performance of a firm or a sector, as evidenced through higher profitability or enhanced earnings.

We estimate that total annual digital identity related GVA reached £888 million across the 266 firms. The majority (74%) is concentrated within large firms.

Size	GVA	Percentage
Large	£674 million	76%
Medium	£130 million	15%
Small	£67 million	8%
Micro	£17 million	2%

GVA by employee

Based on current employment estimates, we estimate that GVA per employee within the digital identity sector is approximately £86,600. This is broadly comparable to the broader digital and AI sectors, but 55% higher than wider English workforce levels, highlighting a high productivity sector.

Comparison table

Sector	GVA per employee (estimate)
Digital Identity (2024)	£86,600
Cyber Security (2024)	£106,300
Digital Sector (All)[footnote 5] (2023)	£84,700
Artificial Intelligence (2023)	£89,900 (all)
England (per workforce job) (2020)	£56,000

Historic growth and forecast scenarios

As set out within previous sections, measuring the digital identity sector can involve varying definitions and scope. However, it is useful to explore both growth to date, as measured by values such as company headcount, revenue, and profitability; and market projections based on market sentiment and forecasting scenarios.

Due to the relatively small market sample (266 providers, with only 44 dedicated providers submitting full accounts to Companies House), these estimates should be treated with appropriate caution. Company performance varies significantly based on factors such as development stage, investment cycles, and market positioning - from firms with established solutions to early-stage companies investing in new technologies.

Growth to date

The UK digital identity sector has demonstrated strong growth, with employment showing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 11.7% over the past 5 years. This growth trajectory is based on analysis of dedicated firms with available accounts, providing insight into employment trends across the sector.

Growth scenarios

There are a range of global ‘market size’ estimates from various market research providers for the global digital identity market. However, many of these studies will have varying definitions and scope, and as such, these are indicative of wider global activity. We find these typically span from between c. $17 billion - $42 billion in 2023/2024, with annual compound growth estimates of c. 16% - 19% per annum over the next 5 years.

For the UK digital identity market, we consider 3 scenarios below, informed by historic growth to date, and wider global estimates. These include:

• High growth (15% CAGR to 2030): The UK market grows in line with global projected growth, trending above the previous 5-year UK average growth rate

• Medium growth (11.7% CAGR to 2030): The UK market grows at a similar rate to the previous 5 years

• Low growth (7% CAGR to 2030): The UK market growth at a lower rate (but in line with the most recent annual growth rate for 2023/2024)

We assume a high (15% CAGR), medium (11.7%), and low (7%) growth scenarios for the market, and apply these against current revenue and employment measures below. These growth scenarios primarily reflect the performance of established firms that comprise most of the sector revenue and employment, rather than small or micro firms that may enter or exit the market. However, this approach provides a baseline that can be refined and reviewed with subsequent analysis, to help test and understand annual growth in future.

These scenarios are informed by the known growth of firms with full accounts over the last 5-year period. This means that the growth estimates track firms that have been active throughout this period and reflect historic known growth to date. Please note, these values are indicative and are not forecasts. They were developed in December 2024, and do not account for policy announcements in January 2025 related to digital identity.

^{Figure 9: UK digital identity indicative market growth scenarios (to 2030)}

^{Source: Perspective Economics}

Summary statistics (2024 estimates)

Size	Firm count	Estimated revenue	Estimated GVA	Estimated employment (FTE)	Revenue per employee (rounded to nearest £100)	GVA per employee (rounded)
Large	31	£1,463 million	£674 million	6,017	£243,100	£112,000
Medium	37	£477 million	£130 million	2,637	£181,000	£49,400
Small	94	£139 million	£67 million	1,262	£110,200	£52,900
Micro	104	£33 million	£17 million	330	£101,400	£50,400
Grand Total	266	£2,113 million	£888 million	10,246	£206,200	£86,600

3.5 Investment landscape

This section draws upon the Beauhurst platform which tracks announced and unannounced investments in high-growth companies from across the UK. The research team has matched company registration numbers and company names identified within this current analysis with the platform to identify 284 fundraisings associated with 65 tracked companies.

In other words, approximately 3 in every 10 (29%) dedicated firms identified within the analysis has received some form of external investment or fundraising since incorporation.

We find that UK dedicated digital identity firms have collectively raised £826 million in external investment between 2015 - 2023. On a deal basis, we find an average deal size of £3.3 million, and median deal of £565,000. We also find that of the 65 dedicated firms that have raised investment, 23 have raised across 5 or more deals, suggesting iterative fundraising over time.

Figure 10 highlights an increase in both the number of deals and amount raised between 2022 and 2023 (from £126 million across 31 deals, to £148 million raised across 34 deals). This highlights increased investor activity in the digital identity ecosystem (c. 19% increase) compared to a wider backdrop of significantly reduced investment in wider sectors. This chart also demonstrates that investor interest has been consistent in recent years, with the sector raising at least £120 million per annum and at least thirty deals between 2020 and 2023.

However, as set out in the Interim Market Analysis report published in late 2024, we anticipated that 2024 aggregate investment levels would be significantly lower than 2023 levels given wider macroeconomic factors, and investment levels moving in a downward trend across UK and tech markets more generally. This has materialised, with £46 million raised across 15 deals (a reduction of 69% in deal values).

^{Figure 10: Investment: Amount raised and number of deals by dedicated digital identity firms (UK)}

^{Source: Perspective Economics analysis of Beauhurst data}

However, whilst levels of venture capital (VC) and external investment may have fallen, as tracked by the Beauhurst platform, there has been ongoing activity with respect to merger and acquisition activity in recent years, as well as strategic partnerships. In 2023 and 2024, we find a number of examples of established security and data companies acquiring UK identity verification specialists, and a range of public-private collaborations formed to scale digital identity services. For example:

• In April 2024, Entrust (a leader in payments, identity and data security) completed its acquisition of London-based Onfido . Onfido is a major UK digital identity firm founded in 2012 offering AI-driven identity verification – e.g. document and biometric checks – to onboard customers for fintech, banks, e-commerce and more. The deal was a full acquisition bringing Onfido’s c. 500 staff and over £100 million of annual revenue into Entrust. This followed Onfido’s own acquisition of Airside , a verified and reusable digital identity company that focused on identity for travellers.

• In late 2024, LexisNexis Risk Solutions, part of RELX, announced its acquisition of IDVerse, an Australian identify verification firm that uses AI to combat fraud and deepfakes, including including facial biometric matching with liveness checks. IDVerse’s platform can automatically verify over 16,000 types of ID documents from around the world.

3.6 Insights from qualitative research

Four key themes emerged from qualitative research on factors influencing the growth of the UK digital identity market:

• International trends: many interviewees highlighted the importance of situating the UK digital identity market in the context of a wider international ecosystem. As set out in section 3.3, a number of UK headquartered digital identity companies operate internationally with wider international trends directly influencing their growth. Specific international trends cited by multiple interviewees included the eIDAS regulation in Europe and the integration of mobile driving licenses (mDLs) into ‘big tech’ issued wallets in the US.

• Government regulation and policy: policy uncertainty was a key theme of research, in part triggered by the January 2025 announcement of the GOV.UK Wallet later in the year. Some interviewees felt this created uncertainty for private sector providers in the market. Other interviewees felt that the GOV.UK Wallet could help to drive adoption through trusted brand recognition and increase participation in the digital economy. Separately, many interviewees felt that government policy and regulation to protect young people was driving demand for digital identity, in particular age assurance services. Gambling, online safety, knife purchasing and alcohol purchasing were all cited as specific examples of use cases where secure and trusted digital identities could support positive change.

• Consumer and relying party attitudes: many interviewees highlighted changing consumer expectations as a key factor influencing the market. Some highlighted that consumers are increasingly used to interacting with digital wallets, for example to make payment transactions or use store loyalty cards, which may attract consumers towards digital identity wallet solutions. The attitudes of relying parties were also identified as a key theme in research. Some interviewees felt that relying parties, particularly in retail environments, were unclear on the benefits of adopting digital identity technologies which presented a barrier to adoption and market growth.

• Technology landscape: the impact of artificial intelligence on the digital identity sector, in particular the challenges presented by synthetic identities (also known as deepfakes), was highlighted by a number of interviewees. Some interviewees felt that additional investment would be required to build the necessary safeguards and detection techniques, which may present challenges for smaller market players. This is further supported by case study evidence in section 4.2.

4. Digital Identity Market Adoption and Innovation

4.1 Introduction

The digital identity sector in the UK continues to evolve rapidly, with innovation driving novel approaches to identity verification, the use of identity data, and trust services. This can be technical, but also reflects new ways of working, data sharing, and developing enabling infrastructure for sharing digital identity, credentials and attributes in a trusted way. This chapter explores current adoption patterns across different sectors, factors influencing both development and implementation of digital identity solutions, and broader innovation trends.

4.2 Market adoption

This section explores levels of sectoral demand for digital identity products and services. The research team has reviewed web data for providers (where available), and developed a classification approach to identify company descriptions, products and services offered, customers and partnerships, industries served, and standards and accreditations.

Customers and partnerships:

We have identified over 2,700 unique customers and partnerships mentioned by the digital providers. We find mention of customers or partners via analysis of company web data, case studies and testimonials. The vast majority (89%) mention at least one customer. We classify each customer against ten top sectors below. Figure 4.1 highlights the percentage of digital identity providers that mention at least one customer in one or more of the respective sectors.

^{Figure 11: Percentage of digital identity firms supplying each sector}

Financial and professional services	85%
Healthcare and public services	58%
Technology and digital	57%
Retail and consumer services	56%
Infrastructure and industry	39%
Education and social	28%
Gaming and entertainment	24%
Automotive and transport	23%
Compliance and verification	21%
Other industries	16%

^{Source: Perspective Economics analysis of 239 companies with 1,380 mentions of customers}

This highlights that the most common application of commercial digital identity solutions is among financial and professional services customers (85%), followed by health and public services (58%), broader technology (57%), and retail and consumer services (56%).

Figure 12 also breaks these into sub-groups, highlighting the significance of relevant subsectors such as financial services (75%), retail (45%), government (41%), and areas such as real estate (27%), gaming and gambling (24%), and travel (21%).

There is a breadth of customer subsectors mentioned by providers (over 30 in scope), which highlights that the research should consider a wide range of use cases and adoption, as digital identity solutions may be applied in a wider setting than consumers might otherwise initially perceive.

^{Figure 12: Percentage of digital identity firms supplying each sector (sub-sectoral)}

Financial services	75%
Retail and purchasing	45%
Health and social care	42%
Government	41%
Professional services	33%
Technology	29%
Insurance	27%
Real estate and construction	27%
Education	25%
Gaming and gambling	24%
Travel and leisure	21%
Telecommunications	19%
Logistics and transportation	17%
Workplace checks	15%
Hospitality	14%
Energy and utilities	12%
Blockchain and cryptocurrency	11%
Manufacturing	11%
Cyber and physical security	10%
Advertising and marketing	10%
Automotive	9%
Accounting	9%
Life sciences	9%
Charities	8%
Other	15%

^{Source: Perspective Economics analysis of 239 companies with 1,380 mentions of customers}

Digital identity use cases

It is also important to consider how customers and individuals use and re-use digital identity solutions to understand context and adoption. Future research could benefit from exploring a range of use cases for digital identity (e.g. proof of age to purchase a lottery ticket), and the associated journeys, user experience, and the processes required to implement these checks (both via physical document and/or digital identity).

This would enable consideration of the economic benefits of digital identity (e.g. time savings, efficiencies), the role of the public sector in shaping procurement, and setting standards and frameworks. Other factors such as competition, innovation, and trust and inclusion may also shape demand and use cases for digital identity solutions.

Figure 13 sets out over 1,500 reported use cases that have been identified through web data as mentioned by providers (and classified into over 25 use cases by the research team). We find (among dedicated providers) that enabling onboarding (42% of providers), fraud prevention (37%), supporting Know Your Customer (KYC) / Anti-Money Laundering (AML) (32%), background screening (28%), identity verification for account opening (20%), and digital document signing (19%) are among the most mentioned use cases.

^{Figure 13: Reported use cases for digital identity providers (web, classified)}

Customer onboarding	42%
Fraud prevention in online transactions	37%
Secure access management	33%
Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance / Anti-Money	32%
Employee background screening	28%
Identity verification for account opening	20%
Digital document signing	19%
Age verification for online services	16%
Healthcare patient identity verification	12%
Right to Work checks	12%
Remote identity verification	11%
Passwordless authentication	11%
Government services access	11%
Customer due diligence	11%
Tenant screening and referencing	10%
Biometric authentication	9%
Digital identity wallets	8%
Travel and border control	7%
Transaction monitoring	6%
Online gaming and gambling verification	5%
Cryptocurrency user verification	5%
Zero Trust security implementation	3%
Source of funds verification	3%
Digital consent management and privacy compliance	2%
Digital identity for supply chain management	2%
IoT device identity and security	1%
Decentralised digital identity	1%

^{Source: Perspective Economics analysis of 247 companies with 1,542 mentions of use cases}

4.3 Benefits of digital identity (commercial measures)

The research team reviewed web data to identify how providers mention or highlight the benefits to end-users of their digital identity solutions. This is experimental; however, helped to yield over 778 mentions of end-benefit to users among 158 providers (where possible) through web articles and search results. We classify these benefits into ten distinct areas, whereby digital identity providers appear to highlight the benefits most directly.

Over half of providers citing benefits to end users mention speed and efficiency (e.g. how much time and their solution can save over manual processes) (57%), user experience (often citing ease of use for the customer and reduced friction) (53%), operational efficiency (e.g. reduction in ongoing costs such as reduced administrative costs, customer support, reduced paperwork etc) (51%), and the role of integration and automation (e.g. streamlined document check processes, reducing check times to minutes etc).

In addition, several vendors also highlight the importance of digital identity for security, fraud protection and wider compliance (45%) e.g. reducing identity fraud, AML risk, and increasing security overall). This also has a more direct commercial impact on third party customers, with 39% of vendors mentioning revenue and growth impacts for their customers, and 34% also mentioning cost reduction. A small number of vendors also mention international scalability – reflecting the need for global data and processes as the customer base grows.

^{Figure 14: Percentage of providers mentioning end-user benefits by type}

Speed and Efficiency	57%
User Experience	53%
Operational Efficiency	51%
Integration and Automation	50%
Security and Fraud Prevention	45%
Revenue and Growth	39%
Compliance and Risk Management	35%
Accuracy and Quality	34%
Cost Reduction	34%
Scalability	3%

^{n = 158 companies with user / customer benefits identified}

Within our review, we find that several providers set out commercial and Return on Investment (ROI) benefits of investing in digital identity. We set out some examples below. Please note that these are case studies as reported by vendors. The statistics have not been independently verified by this research team.

OneTrust:

• In September 2024, OneTrust published a Total Economic Impact study conducted by Forrester^{[footnote 6]}. This study interviewed customers and reviewed company level data to identify that a typical customer investing in OneTrust experienced a ‘227% return on investment (ROI) over 3 years with a payback period of within 7 months, substantially improved the productivity of their teams, remained up to date with the state of change in privacy regulation and growth in regulated data, and leveraged customer data more effectively.’

• These firms also reported an average of a 3% annual increase in revenue, 75% improvement in privacy team productivity, 75% reduction in regulatory risk, and an annual cost saving of $195,000 in annual technology service costs.

GBG:

• GBG is one of the UK’s largest digital identity providers and has a wide range of case studies and customer stories online. They work closely with several of the UK’s largest banks, payment processors, gaming firms, and retailers.

• Within their customer stories, they provide several quantitative benefits of their verification and onboarding platform, including a ‘9% improvement in customer pass rates for St James’s Place, a 14% increase in pass rates for Atlantic Lottery, and a 21% uplift in customer match rates for CurrencyFair (resulting in significant reductions in onboarding costs)^{[footnote 7]}. GBG also works with Anthony Nolan^{[footnote 8]}, a stem cell transplant charity, who use GBG Investigate to rapidly find contact information for donors – helping to save time and lives.

TrustID:

• TrustID is a certified Identity Service Provider (IDSP) offering identity verification services including Right to Work checks, Right to Rent checks, DBS, and ID scanner checks. TrustID has over twenty customer case studies online, including citations from a range of sectors such as software, recruitment, education, bars, manufacturers and public sector clients^{[footnote 9]}.

• They have worked closely with Oxford City Council, firstly to scan documentation for proof of identity, and in 2020 – they introduced an online verification service to support the remote upload and verification of documentations for business grant applicants. ‘Within the first year of use, Oxford City Council attributed at least £36,000 of savings to the TrustID scanners since the software helped them to prevent 2 applications for housing that were made to the Council using fraudulent identity documents.’^{[footnote 10]}

E-Sign:

• eSign is a UK-based global provider of electronic signature solutions, founded in 2012. They enable customers to digitise their document signing processes to help reduce administrative costs and ensure secure and verified processes^{[footnote 11]}.

• They have worked closely with several UK customers, including supporting a number of NHS Trusts with digital prescription processes, helping to reduce time from paper-based systems (up to 2 weeks) to 6 minutes, helping to save hours of clinician time every day^{[footnote 12]}. They have also supported local councils with tenancy completion processes, and the use of electronic signatures in recruitment processes.

4.4 Innovation and Research and Development (R&D)

As shown in section 3, the UK’s digital identity ecosystem contains a mix of established firms with decades of experience and a strong presence in areas such as background screening and financial data, as well as sustained growth in new providers in areas such as identity verification and trust services since the 2000s. As such, innovation and investment in research and development is a key element of growing the sector and ensuring that the benefits of digital identity solutions can be deployed effectively across the economy.

Innovation can be challenging to measure; most providers are likely to demonstrate new and novel approaches to market and continue to invest in new technologies and approaches for their customers. However, the UK’s digital identity sector exhibits a particularly wide range of solutions, underpinned by technical innovation, and exported globally. Several companies in the digital identity ecosystem have been spun-out of leading academic and commercial institutions. For example, Onfido was one of the first entrants into University of Oxford’s Innovation Incubator in 2012 and subsequently developed a world-leading identity verification platform before being acquired by Entrust. This makes Onfido the ‘highest value return on investment for a student start-up for the University of Oxford’^{[footnote 13]}.

Further, commercial models have also encouraged several ‘corporate spinouts’ within the UK’s digital identity ecosystem. For example, Callcredit (a consumer credit data company) was founded in 2000 as a part of a partnership with Skipton Building Society to extend into credit and marketing data and was acquired by TransUnion in 2019 for c. £1 billion)^{[footnote 14]}. HooYu (a Mitek company)’s history goes back to the mid-1990s, with the team launching 192.com in 1996, followed by 192business in 2004 to ‘serve over 1500 organizations such as Apple, Dell, 888.com and HSBC with identity verification solutions to detect fraud, verify customer age and prevent money laundering^{[footnote 15]}’ before Experian acquiring 192business in 2012. HooYu was subsequently launched in 2016, GBG acquired its HooYu Investigate platform in 2020, and HooYu was acquired by Mitek in 2022 for £98 million^{[footnote 16]}. In 2011, the Reed Group (founded in 1960) launched its own screening business (Reed Screening) offering pre-employment, background, and identity checks.

These case studies demonstrate the importance of maintaining a strong innovation pipeline in the UK, which supports early-stage research and commercialisation from leading universities in digital identity and aligned research areas). The innovation pipeline also needs to provide the conditions for firms to grow such as access to capital, research partnerships, and involvement in research and innovation projects. Further, innovation is not only about ‘new’ companies; established firms can also be supported to find opportunities to enhance and improve the digital identity process with their own customer base.

The research team has reviewed UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) data for all 266 providers, with a direct focus on dedicated digital identity firms. We find evidence of 16 dedicated providers (6%) as being directly involved in 33 publicly funded research projects, either through a direct grant, or research partnership with a UK university (between 2011 – 2024). Given the small sample size, we set out some indicative case studies below based on UKRI projects and participations.

Research Case Study 1: Vouchsafe^{[footnote 17]}

Vouchsafe is a tech-for-good company that is innovating in identity verification by leveraging social vouching. Their approach is different to knowledge-based verification methods—which can rely on existing identity data or credentials and often fail those with limited financial history. Vouchsafe’s approach enables individuals to have someone they trust vouch for them. This model seeks to address a critical gap – that, as set out in the research abstract, ‘approximately one in 5 UK residents lack identity documents like passports or driving licences’, limiting their access to vital services including banking, housing, healthcare, and voting’.

In a recent Innovate UK-funded project (£79,800; November 2024 – April 2025), Vouchsafe is collaborating with the charity Carefree^{[footnote 18]}—a platform that helps unpaid full-time carers secure free breaks through partnerships with large hotel operators. Carefree identified that many users abandon the self-referral process because they cannot easily prove their identity. Vouchsafe’s system offers an automatic, fast, and free way to verify identities through trusted social networks. Through this partnership, Carefree is set to help more carers benefit from short breaks, whilst maintaining the trust of its accommodation partners who donate their excess capacity to the charity.

Since the project, Vouchsafe has been certified against the UK digital identity and attributes trust framework, as the ‘first IDSP certified to vouching’. Further, Vouchsafe is also working with the Scottish Government (ScotAccount) to help onboard an estimated one million Scots without photo ID^{[footnote 19]}.

In March 2025, Vouchsafe announced it had raised £1 million in pre-seed funding^{[footnote 20]} to help enhance the platform, and scale its identity verification and fraud prevention offering.

Research Case Study 2: SPRITE+: The Security, Privacy, Identity and Trust Engagement Network+^{[footnote 21]}.

SPRITE+ is an EPSRC-funded research initiative launched in 2019, with the second phase commencing in 2023 (£3.1 million, 2023 –2027) led by The University of Manchester. As the second phase of the successful SPRITE+ network launched in 2019, SPRITE+2 focuses on addressing the complex challenges at the intersection of trust, identity, privacy, and security (TIPS) in digital contexts. This project brings together an extensive, cross‑sector community, with more than twenty named partners (including digital identity firm Yoti) spanning academia, industry, and government—to develop innovation in TIPS research, with a special emphasis on digital identity.

The main objectives of SPRITE+ are to expand the TIPS network, harnessing the expertise and collaborative potential of the national and international communities, identity and prioritise future TIPS research challenges, explore and develop priority research areas, and stimulate innovation in research through sandpits, industry led calls, and horizon scanning.

In January 2023, SPRITE+ hosted its third sandpit focused on ‘Future Digital Identity’. Over the course of 5 sessions, participants formed teams and created projects, which explore future digital identity from multi-disciplinary and stakeholder perspectives. These included ‘Building a minimal viable digital identity from digital footprints’, ‘Digital Product Passports’, ‘Smoothing the Digital Identity Onboarding Process’, ‘Digital Identity and the Life Course Study’, and ‘Trust, Rights and Identity in the Metaverse’.

These projects demonstrate significant opportunity to work with research councils on a range of research projects, partnerships, and academic and industry collaboration. There will also be novel opportunities to engage in new research areas relating to trust, privacy, security, and digital identity more broadly. However, the number of academic spin-outs into the digital identity ecosystem arguably remains limited to date, potentially signalling the need for sustained investment to maintain academic strengths, and commercial novel technologies to help ensure the digital identity ecosystem is primed to protect individuals and businesses from emergent threats.

Further, whilst not captured within UKRI activity to-date, our review of known company accounts also highlights the role of R&D within established firms. For example, we find 6 companies with direct R&D expenditure in accounts totalling £31 million in 2023/24 alone.

5. Consumer Attitudes to Digital Identity

Understanding consumer attitudes to digital identity is an important part of driving digital identity adoption across sectors. One of the key policy drivers for this research was to build a broader evidence base around how different groups of consumers understand, use and experience the use of digital identity. In particular, building a better understanding of the inclusion and access challenges associated with digital identity use was a key objective of this research and guided the methodology and sampling approach.

Methodology overview

This chapter sets out the consumer research conducted by Survation, in collaboration with Projects by IF, between 9th-27th January 2025. The study involved online and telephone surveys of 3,561 British residents aged 18-66^{[footnote 22]}, examining experiences with using digital identity and verification.

The research methodology includes:  

Step 1: Survey design and sampling approach

The research team reviewed and confirmed the research objectives, target audience, and methodology. Relevant questions were developed with a clear layout to ensure accuracy, ease of completion, and to minimise response bias.

Additional verification questions were included to help confirm whether respondents had a good understanding of the questions and what they meant. For example, respondents who reported using digital identity for a specific use case were asked, ‘You said you have used a digital identity service when completing a specific use case. How were you asked to verify your identity?’. This helped to determine how respondents had used a digital identity service such as an app or verification service, or if they had to present their ID in-person or send an e-mail of their ID.^{[footnote 23]} For the purpose of this research, e-mailing a photograph of physical ID was deemed out of scope as a form of digital identity.

Sampling Approach:

The research employed a stratified quota sampling approach, setting recruitment quotas for key demographic variables and groups at higher risk of exclusion. Specific recruitment efforts targeted participants with:

• Limited access to standard identification documents

• Experience changing aspects of their personal identity (name, gender, etc.)

• Lower digital skills (as defined by the Lloyds Bank Consumer Digital Index)

• Limited digital access or connectivity

Those who did not meet the relevant criteria were excluded. Quotas were closely monitored throughout data collection, with additional recruitment as needed to maintain balance. Participants were provided with an overview of the research and had the opportunity to opt out at any stage, ensuring informed consent.

Step 2: Survey pre-testing

Projects by IF, with Survation, tested the survey on a sample of 60 respondents to test if the questions were easy to follow and understand. Projects by IF further conducted 10 moderated qualitative interviews where a researcher was able to engage the individual while they were filling out the survey to further test the survey design. This feedback was used to inform the full survey rollout.

Step 3: Survey

Survation conducted the survey on a sample of the population of Great Britain with a sample size of 3,561. The survey involved 30 questions (7 screening questions and 23 survey questions) and was conducted in: English, Welsh, Panjabi and Urdu as per the most common languages in England, Wales and Scotland.

Individuals were reached through 2 channels: majority online, desktop and mobile compatible, (3,357 respondents) and telephone (CATI) for individuals who lack devices and connectivity (204 respondents). Additional focus was undertaken to ensure representation in survey participants from groups at greater risk of exclusion, including individuals with lower levels of ID, with changes in aspects of their ID, and with low digital skills and limited digital access. Annex B includes a detailed breakdown of these groups.

Step 4: Analysis

The research team analysed the 3,561 responses to the survey in February 2025. This included:

Response validation: Responses were reviewed to identify potential misunderstandings of key concepts. This analysis revealed that some respondents had misinterpreted the use of Apple Pay and Google Pay as digital identity verification services rather than account authentication and payment systems. To maintain data integrity, these responses were excluded from analysis of digital identity verification experiences.

Treatment of missing data: For demographic and segmentation analyses, records with “N/A” (not applicable) or “Prefer not to say” responses were excluded from the specific analyses where those variables were relevant.

To gain insights from the survey data, several analytical approaches were employed:

Demographic segmentation: Data was analysed by age cohorts, digital skill levels, and access to identification documents to identify differences in experiences and needs.

Comparative analysis: Findings for specific demographic groups were compared against the wider sample to identify unique challenges and needs.

Population-level understanding: Where relevant, all responses were analysed (on an unweighted basis) to explore overall estimated understanding, knowledge and experience of using digital identity. As this data is unweighted and given the use of purposive sampling to increase participation by certain groups, this should be treated with some caution; however, it does provide a useful basis for understanding takeup.

Survey Limitations:

The use of a survey can provide useful insights into understanding and adoption of digital identity. However, we note the following limitations that should be considered when interpreting these findings:

• Sample Characteristics: The survey sought to ensure a sufficient level of responses to enable population-based analysis, whilst also including focus on subgroups to ensure a diversity of feedback (e.g. from individuals that may be otherwise feel excluded from engaging with digital identity). Specific sampling quotes are included in Annex B. This report includes analysis of unweighted data; further research may benefit from demographic weighting to strengthen population-level estimates.

• Subgroup sample sizes: Some specific demographic subgroups (e.g., individuals who had changed both their name and gender and certain ethnic groups) had relatively small sample sizes. Findings related to these subgroups (particularly with fewer than 350 respondents) should typically be considered indicative rather than definitive and may benefit from targeted qualitative research. Some detailed data breakdowns (e.g. on ethnicity) are therefore not reported in the analysis, even though data was collected.

• Interpretation and self-reporting data: The survey relies on self-reported experiences, which may be affected by recall or varied understanding of technical concepts. While verification questions helped how users thought about digital identity, this remains a challenge in understanding population-level feedback on use and views.

• Variations in sample size: For some questions, the sample size may vary slightly depending on whether the respondent fully completed the question, or if the survey logic applied to their own demographic or experiences. Some figures may also not sum due to rounding.

5.1 Digital identity use in Great Britain 

Understanding and awareness of digital identity

The research explored public understanding of digital identity services, which allow individuals to prove their identity or personal attributes without physical documents. After being provided with a brief explanation of the concept^{[footnote 24]}, respondents were asked to assess their level of understanding, by being asked ‘To what extent, if any, do you understand the concept of a digital identity service?’

Figure 15 shows that approximately a quarter (24%) of respondents claim to have a ‘complete understanding’ of the concept of digital identity, and nearly half (47%) of respondents reported to either ‘mostly’ (24%) or ‘somewhat’ (23%) understand. This suggests that 71% of respondents feel that they have some understanding (‘completely’, ‘mostly’ or ‘somewhat’) of the concept of digital identity.

^{Figure 15: Self-reported consumer understanding of digital identity}

Completely	24%
Mostly	24%
Somewhat	23%
A little	21%
Not at all	8%

^{n = 3561}

However, a substantial minority (29%) of respondents felt that they had little or no understanding of digital identity (21% ‘a little’, 8% ‘not at all’), highlighting an awareness gap that may affect adoption and usage of digital identity solutions.

The survey findings also suggest notable variations across demographic groups, suggesting different levels of exposure, relevance, and engagement with digital identity services.

Self-reported consumer understanding of digital identity by age

Response	18-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-66
Completely	14%	26%	27%	27%	21%
Mostly	24%	25%	24%	25%	24%
Somewhat	26%	25%	24%	23%	20%
A little	27%	18%	18%	19%	25%
Not at all	8%	6%	6%	6%	9%
Some Understanding	64%	76%	75%	75%	65%
Limited Understanding	35%	24%	24%	25%	34%

^{Overall (n = 3509), 18-24 (n = 284), 25-34 (n = 668), 35-44 (n = 721), 45-54 (n = 803), 55-66 (n = 1033)}

^{Note: “Some Understanding” combines “Completely,” “Mostly,” and “Somewhat” responses. “Limited Understanding” combines “A little” and “Not at all” responses. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.}

The data suggests that adults aged 25 – 54 report to have higher levels of understanding of digital identity with approximately three-quarters (75%) indicating that they have some level of understanding. In contrast, the youngest (18-24) and oldest (55-66) groups demonstrate slightly lower levels, with approximately two-thirds (64% and 65% respectively) reporting some level of understanding.

This may be driven by practical experience with digital identity services, or services they perceive to be digital identity services – often necessitated by life events such as opening a bank account or buying a property. As such, formal exposure to digital identity tools may be one of the main determinants for levels of understanding. We explore this later when looking at digital identity use by age.

Self-reported consumer understanding of digital identity by annual household income^{[footnote 25]}

Response	£0 - 19,999	£20,000 - £39,999	£40,000 +
Completely	17%	24%	33%
Mostly	19%	27%	28%
Somewhat	29%	23%	17%
A little	23%	20%	19%
Not at all	12%	6%	3%
Some Understanding	65%	74%	78%
Limited Understanding	35%	26%	22%

^{Overall (n = 3357), £0 - 19,999 (n = 1185), £20,000 - £39,999 (n = 1122), £40,000 + (n = 1050)}

The survey data suggests a strong linear relationship between annual household income and perceived understanding of digital identity, which may highlight potential socioeconomic considerations regarding use and adoption. The data suggests that higher-income respondents (£40,000+) are nearly twice as likely to report a ‘complete’ understanding (33%) than those in the lowest bracket (17%). Similarly, respondents in the lowest income bracket (£0 - £19,999) are 4 times more likely to report ‘no understanding at all’ (12%) compared to those in the highest bracket (3%).

There may be multiple factors shaping this perceived understanding, such as levels of financial services access that require identity verification, as well as wider access to digital infrastructure, skills and confidence. This data may also highlight the ongoing need for inclusive design, informed by experiences and capabilities of users across socio-economic factors.

This report considers those with lower digital skills, lower digital access level, lower levels of ID and lower access as groups at higher risk of exclusion (definitions found in Annex B).

^{Figure 16: Percentage of those who reported limited understanding of digital identity by groups at higher risk of exclusion}

Lower digital skills	47%
Lower digital access level	40%
Lower levels of ID	37%
Lower access	35%
Overall	29%

^{Lower digital skills (n = 771), Lower digital access level (n = 1005), Lower levels of ID (n = 847), Lower access (n = 1165),}

The data suggests that individuals with lower digital skills, lower digital access, lower levels of ID, and lower access are less likely to report that they understand digital identity than the typical respondent. This is supported by qualitative findings which highlighted that those with lower digital skills, may have a smartphone and utilise basic functionality, but will not use it for use cases such as online banking.

Levels of use

In addition to levels of understanding, respondents were asked about their participation in daily use cases that involve identity and/or identity verification.

All survey respondents were asked ‘To your knowledge, have you had any experience proving your identity when doing any of the following?’ and were provided with a list of possible use cases. The use case options were:

• opening a bank account

• applying for a credit card or loan online

• setting up and managing insurance policies

• verifying your identity online when renting a property

• verifying your identity online when buying a property

• proving you have the right to work in the UK after receiving a job offer

• proving how old you are when going to a cinema or buying something age-restricted like a lottery ticket in a shop

• accessing online games or gambling accounts

• proving who you are when doing a DBS check

• accessing discounted travel schemes (e.g., student railcards)

• buying tickets for concerts, sports, or theatre shows requiring proof of identity.

Respondents were also asked about their experiences linking their identity to Apple Pay and Google Pay, but these were removed from analysis due to expected misinterpretation of the use case.

Respondents were then asked if they had completed the use case digitally or non-digitally. Validation questions were used to determine whether the respondents understanding of digital identity matched the definition of digital identity being used by this study.^{[footnote 23]} Analysis of these responses can be used to understand overall levels of digital identity use.

Level of digital identity use	Percentage of total respondents
Has used digital identity services for at least one purpose	44%
Have never used digital identity services	38%
Hasn’t used a digital identity according to the scope of this research	18%

^{n = 3561}

A significant proportion of the population has engaged with digital identity services, with 44% of all survey respondents having completed at least one digital identity use case at some point in their lives. Notably the number of survey respondents that have used digital identity (44%) was much lower than the number of survey respondents to report at least ‘somewhat’ of an understanding of digital identity (71%).

38% of respondents reported that they had never used a digital identity service. The remaining 18% of respondents thought that they had used a digital identity service but through the validation questions, they provided evidence to suggest they had not used a digital identity service, according to the scope of this research.

The following tables show breakdowns of demographic and selected groups for survey respondents that have used at least one digital identity service at some point.

Digital identity use by age

Age Group	Percentage of each group who has used digital identity
18-24	46%
25-34	59%
35-44	48%
45-54	43%
55-66	34%

^{Overall (n = 3509), 18-24 (n = 284), 25-34 (n = 668), 35-44 (n = 721), 45-54 (n = 803), 55-66 (n = 1033)}

The data shows that individuals aged 25-34 are most likely to report to have used a digital identity service (59%), whereas those aged 55-66 were least likely to have used digital identity (34%). This could be driven by more need within the 25-34 cohort to complete the use cases included in the study, such as opening a bank account, applying for a loan online, or verifying identity when buying or renting a property, or completing a DBS check (as part of applying for a new job).

The overall trend differs slightly from self-reported levels of understanding. While the youngest respondents and the oldest respondents were least likely to report that they had ‘some understanding’ of digital identity, the oldest respondents (45 and older) were least likely to have used digital identity. This suggests that 18-24 year olds may be more likely to use digital identity even if they think they don’t understand it completely.

Digital identity use by annual household income

Income	Percentage of each group who has used digital identity
£0 - £19,999	31%
£20,000 - £39,999	48%
£40,000 +	59%

^{Overall (n = 3357), £0 - £19,999 (n = 1185), £20,000 - £39,999 (n = 1122), £40,000 + (n = 1050)}

The data shows that households earning more than £40,000 per year are more likely (59%) to have used digital identity than the lowest earners, £0 - 19,999 (31%). Again, this may be driven by higher earning households having more need or opportunity to engage with the use cases included in this study (e.g. proving identity digitally when buying or renting a property).

Digital identity use by ethnicity

Ethnicity	Percentage of each group who has used digital identity
White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British, or Other	42%
Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh	56%
Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African	72%
Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups	48%
Other ethnic groups	52%

^{Overall (n = 3486) White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British, or Other (n = 2993), Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh (n = 216), Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African (n = 171), Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups (n = 73), Other ethnic groups (n = 33)}

The data shows that those who identify as Black, Black British, Caribbean or African are most likely to have used a digital identity (72%). These findings are consistent with higher levels of self-reported understanding within this demographic group. However, caution should be applied to these results as small sample sizes for different ethnic groups limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions.

^{Figure 17: Digital identity use by groups at higher risk of exclusion}

Lower access	40%
Lower digital access level	30%
Lower digital skills	27%
Lower levels of ID	23%
Overall	44%

^{Lower access (n = 1165), Lower digital access level (n = 1005), Lower digital skills (n = 771), Lower levels of ID (n = 847)}

Consistent with levels of self-reported understanding, the research found that those with lower digital skills, lower digital access and lower access were less likely to have used digital identity. In addition, those with lower levels of ID were the least likely group at higher risk of exclusion to have reported using a digital identity service (21 percentage points lower than the percentage of the overall population). In the context of the broader market study findings, this could be explained due to the large number of digital identity providers that offer document-based identity verification services (54%) and therefore would require users to have access to traditional forms of ID to utilise their services.

These findings suggest that lower digital skills have a greater impact on self-reported levels of understanding of digital identity, whereas lower levels of ID have a greater impact on levels of digital identity use.

How are individuals using digital identity?

All the respondents who had completed each use case were asked whether they verified their identity using a digital or non-digital method. Those that claimed that they had used a digital method were then asked validation questions to ensure that they had used a valid form of digital identity verification, according to the scope of this research. Figure 18 shows the percentage of respondents who completed the use case using a digital identity service.

^{Figure 18: Digital identity use by use case}

Accessing online games or gambling accounts	38%
Applying for a credit card or loan online	36%
Setting up and managing insurance policies	28%
Opening a bank account	27%
Accessing discounted travel schemes	27%
Proving who you are when doing a DBS check	26%
Buying tickets that require proof of identity	24%
Proving you have the right to work in the UK	21%
Verifying your identity online when buying a property	21%
Verifying your identity online when renting a property	18%
Proving how old you are when buying something age-restricted	10%

^{Accessing online games or gambling accounts (n = 1572), applying for a credit card or loan (n = 2107), setting up and managing insurance policies (n = 2057), opening a bank account (n = 3092), accessing discounted travel schemes (n = 1565), proving who you are when doing a DBS check (n = 2004), buying tickets that require proof of identity (n = 1818), proving you have the right to work in the UK (n = 2137), verifying your identity online when buying a property (n = 1979), verifying your identity online when renting a property (n = 1828), proving how old you are when buying something age-restricted (n = 1967).}

Figure 18 shows that the most common use case for individuals reporting use of a digital identity service, rather than using a non-digital method, is ‘accessing online game or gambling accounts’ (38%), followed by ‘applying for a credit card or loan online’ (36%). ‘Setting up and managing insurance policies’ was the next highest use case at 28%.

These findings are consistent with findings in section 4 on adoption and with insights from the interviews with digital identity providers, relying parties and consumer groups. Many interviewees and digital identity provider survey respondents highlighted financial services, alongside public sector, as the sectors with the greatest adoption of digital identity. Other interviewees highlighted gambling and adult material, as driving adoption of age verification services, citing the impact of government regulation.

Multiple use cases

The following table shows the number of use cases completed digitally by each respondent that reports to have completed at least one use case (44% of total respondents).

Digital identity users by number of use cases completed

Number of use cases completed digitally	Percentage of respondents who have completed the specific number of use cases digitally[footnote 26]
1 use case	15%
2 use cases	14%
3 use cases	14%
4 use cases	13%
5 use cases	10%
6 use cases	8%
7 use cases	6%
8 use cases	5%
9 use cases	3%
10 use cases	4%
11 use cases	6%

^{n = 1581}

The data shows that the majority of people who report to have completed a digital identity use case, have completed multiple digital identity use cases (85% of the total 44% of respondents using digital identity).

What are the decision-making factors influencing use?

The survey examined factors that respondents consider important when encountering digital identity requirements. While the survey asked about ‘decision-making factors’, it is important to recognise that in many contexts, using digital identity services may be a condition of accessing services provided by banks, government agencies, or landlords. This may involve digital or alternative methods (such as verifying in person or with paper documentation); however, usage and experience will be shaped by some of the factors set out below.

To better understand factors influencing use and views on digital identity services, all respondents (including those who had not completed a digital identity use case) were asked ‘What factors are important to you when deciding to use a digital identity service?’ Each factor was ranked from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important)’.

Figure 19 shows the percentage of all respondents who felt the factor in question was ‘very important’ (5) or ‘somewhat important’ (4) to them when deciding whether to use a digital identity service.

^{Figure 19: Factors that are important to customers when deciding to use a digital identity service}

The service respects my privacy	79%
The service is secure against security threats	79%
It’s clear at the start of the process what identity evidence I will need to use this service	76%
The service provider has a good reputation	76%
The service is reliable (i.e. it enables me to do what I’m trying to do, and I can count on it working)	75%
The service is tested against and adheres to government standards	75%
The service is transparent in how they operate and use the information I provide to them	74%
The service is easy to use and understand	74%
I am able to get effective support from the service when I need help	73%
I can raise complaints and disputes when needed, and there will be consequences if the provider goes against their word	66%
The service has an ‘offline’ mode to access my digital identification if I don’t have access to an internet connection	56%
The service is free of charge	42%

^{n = 3561}

The figure shows that individuals report several factors that influence their decision making when choosing a digital identity service. Privacy and security were marginally identified as top factors, both being selected by 79% of respondents however user experience, reputation, reliability, testing, transparency and ease of use are all mutually important. This suggests that high standards in the development and delivery of digital identity services will be key to attracting and successfully onboarding customers.

To understand these findings in a greater level of detail, the following figures breakdown those who responded ‘very important’ (5) or ‘somewhat important’ (4) to each of the factors by age and by groups at higher risk of exclusion.

^{Figure 20: Factors that are important to customers when deciding to use a digital identity service by age}

Attribute	18-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-66
The service respects my privacy	68%	73%	81%	81%	85%
The service is secure against security threats	64%	73%	81%	81%	85%
It’s clear at the start of the process what identity evidence I will need	58%	68%	76%	79%	84%
The service provider has a good reputation	64%	71%	77%	77%	81%
The service is reliable	54%	69%	78%	80%	81%
The service is tested against and adheres to government standards	62%	69%	75%	77%	81%
The service is transparent in how they operate	61%	67%	76%	76%	80%
The service is easy to use and understand	58%	66%	75%	79%	80%
I am able to get effective support from the service when I need help	58%	68%	74%	76%	79%
I can raise complaints and disputes when needed	57%	63%	67%	68%	70%
The service has an ‘offline’ mode	51%	55%	56%	56%	59%
The service is free of charge	48%	46%	44%	41%	40%

^{Overall (n = 3509), 18-24 (n = 284), 25-34 (n = 668), 35-44 (n = 721), 45-54 (n = 803), 55-66 (n = 1033)}

The data in Figure 20 shows that although ‘privacy’ and ‘security’ emerged as the most important factors overall, results differed by age group. Older respondents consistently identified both ‘privacy’ and ‘security’ as more important than younger respondents (with the exception of 35-44 year olds and 45-54 year olds where the results were consistent across cohorts). This is supported by findings from the qualitative research where some interviewees highlighted that young people tend to be less concerned by privacy and security considerations than older demographics.

This trend is mirrored across most factors with older respondents generally reporting factors as more important in their decision making than younger respondents. However, this trend was inversed for ‘free service’ where younger respondents felt that this was more important than older respondents.

^{Figure 21: Factors that are important to customers when deciding to use a digital identity service by groups at higher risk of exclusion}

Attribute	Lower skills	Lower access level	Lower access	Lower ID
The service respects my privacy	62%	73%	78%	69%
The service is secure against security threats	61%	73%	78%	69%
It’s clear at the start of the process what identity evidence I will need	55%	69%	75%	66%
The service provider has a good reputation	60%	69%	76%	65%
The service is reliable	53%	68%	74%	64%
The service is tested against and adheres to government standards	57%	68%	73%	65%
The service is transparent in how they operate	55%	67%	74%	63%
The service is easy to use and understand	51%	67%	74%	63%
I am able to get effective support from the service when I need help	58%	68%	72%	62%
I can raise complaints and disputes when needed	53%	26%	32%	59%
The service has an ‘offline’ mode	49%	56%	56%	54%
The service is free of charge	45%	41%	40%	40%

^{Lower digital skills (n = 771), Lower digital access level (n = 1005), Lower access (n = 1165), Lower levels of ID (n = 847)}

Compared to the percentage of overall respondents who indicated that the privacy (79%) and security (79%) were ‘very important’ or ‘somewhat important’, this research found that certain groups at higher risk of exclusion were less concerned about privacy and security: those with lower digital skills, lower digital access and lower levels of ID.

Reusable identity

A reusable digital identity is a single digital identity that can be used more than once, across multiple providers, platforms or services.

Survey respondents who have used a digital identity service were asked ‘How were you asked to verify your identity?’. 20% of individuals who have used a digital identity service, specifically reported that they were ‘asked to use a verified reusable digital identity that they had already used before’.

^{Figure 22: Reusable digital identity use by use case}

Buying tickets for concerts, sports, or theatre shows requiring proof of identity	18%
Accessing online games or gambling accounts	16%
Setting up and managing insurance policies	13%
Applying for a credit card or loan online	12%
Accessing discounted travel schemes	11%
Opening a bank account	8%
Proving right to work in the UK	8%
Verifying identity when renting a property	7%
Verifying identity when buying a property	6%
Proving identity when doing a DBS check	6%
Proving age when going to a cinema or buying something age-restricted	0%

^{Buying tickets for concerts, sports, or theatre shows that require proof of identity (n = 350), Accessing online gaming or gambling account (n = 487), Setting up or managing insurance policies (n = 445), Applying for a credit card or loan online (n = 615), Accessing discounted travel schemes (n = 317), Opening a bank account online (n = 685), Proving you have the right to work in the UK (n = 356), Verifying your identity when renting a property (n = 245), Verifying your identity when buying a property (n = 316), Proving identity when doing a DBS check (n = 465), Prove your age when going to a cinema or buying something age-restricted in a shop (n = 120)}

Out of all those who reported using a digital identity service for each use case, Figure 22 shows the percentage of individuals that report specifically using a reusable digital identity. The most common use case for the use of reusable digital identity was ‘buying tickets for concerts, sports or theatre shows requiring proof of identity’ (18%) following by ‘accessing online games or gambling accounts’ (16%).

The higher percentage of respondents for ticket purchases may reflect respondents misinterpreting standard account usage (such as logging into ticket purchasing websites) as reusable digital identity usage. Additional validation checks were not asked in this part of the survey, limiting our ability to draw firm conclusions.

These high-level findings are supported by insights from qualitative research which highlighted adoption of reusable digital identity services has been slower than single use digital identity services. Some interviewees highlighted that this was because of a lack of established commercial model for reusable digital identity. Other interviewees highlighted evidence of growing demand for reusable digital identity, including in the new home builders and legal sectors, as well as from financial brokers and lenders.

5.2 Benefits of digital identity

Understanding and better communicating the benefits of digital identity will be key to driving consumer adoption and growth of the digital identity market.

To capture data on the benefits of digital identity, a sub-section of survey respondents who reported that they had used a digital identity service were asked to identify the key benefits in the context of each relevant use case. Respondents could select multiple benefits for each use case. Only a sub-section of survey respondents were asked for each use case to limit survey fatigue.

Figure 23 shows the key benefits reported by respondents when completing the top 3 most common use cases involving digital identity: using an online gaming or gambling account, applying for a credit card or loan and setting up or managing an insurance policy online.

^{Figure 23: Benefits experienced when using digital identity for the most common use cases}

Benefit	Online gaming or gambling account	Applying for a credit card or loan	Setting up or managing an insurance policy online
It was a quicker process than verifying my identity with a physical ID	67%	75%	75%
It was a more convenient process than verifying my identity with a physical ID	50%	56%	60%
I was able to re-use a digital identity I have already used previously	23%	17%	23%
It allowed me to prove my identity when otherwise I could not	20%	22%	23%
I felt confident the information I provided about myself is stored securely	10%	19%	16%
I did not have to share more information than is necessary for the situation	10%	16%	14%
I felt confident that the service protected me against potential identity theft or fraud	6%	16%	12%
It allowed me to verify my identity in a time when I did not have physical ID to hand	10%	10%	16%
I felt like I had control over my data	9%	14%	13%
I was able to get support and assistance when I needed it	10%	10%	11%
None of the above	5%	4%	4%

^{Online gaming or gambling account (n = 163), applying for a credit card or loan (n = 221), setting up or managing an insurance policy online (n = 197)}

Figure 23 shows that the top reported benefits of digital identity are time savings (‘it was a quicker process than verifying my identity with a physical ID’) and user convenience (‘it was a more convenient process than verifying my identity with a physical ID’). These findings are consistent with the findings reported in section 4.4 and with the insights produced by the digital identity provider survey, where providers identified convenience for the end-user and time savings as the primary benefits – which ultimately support increased user onboarding, and improved productivity for the UK economy. Many interviewees also highlighted that greater clarity on the benefits of digital identity (both for consumers and relying parties) would be important for building confidence and driving greater adoption.

5.3 Barriers to use

The following section covers the barriers to using digital identity, experienced by those not yet using digital identity.

It is important to also understand where and why some consumers are not using digital identity services, to help improve and support adoption where relevant in the UK economy, as well as understanding user preference regarding digital identities and physical documents.

Respondents who indicated they have not completed a digital identity use case (38%) were asked to select the reasons why they have not used one. Respondents could select multiple options. This research found that the biggest reason that consumers are not using digital identity is because they believe that they currently have no need to use it (63% of those not using digital identity).

However, the reported ‘lack of need’ requires further analysis, as it may reflect multiple underlying factors. For example:

• Limited use of digital identity within use cases: The ‘no need’ response may reflect a market reality where many relying parties have not integrated digital identity options into their customer journeys. When digital identity verification is not offered as an option during common transactions, users may perceive no need for these tools (for example, they can verify their identity in person).

• Satisfaction with physical documents: Many respondents may be satisfied with their current physical identification methods. For infrequent verification, the inconvenience of carrying a physical document like a passport or driving licence may not create sufficient friction to motivate adoption or use of new digital solutions.

Wider qualitative research findings support the evidence that a ‘lack of need’ (covering the above underlying factors) is a key reason people aren’t using digital identity services. Some interviewed digital identity providers felt that some relying parties across sectors have been slow to adopt digital identity as they are less clear on how it will deliver benefits to them. As a result, many consumers are not being given the opportunity to verify their identity digitally on a day-to-day basis. Additionally, the OfDIA public dialogue on trust in digital identity services report^{[footnote 27]} highlights that some participants were satisfied with physical documents: ‘If it isn’t broke don’t fix it. We’ve got ways of proving who we are, or our age or whatever without a big hoo-ha about what format that proof comes in.’

In contrast, other interviewees highlighted that changes in government policy and new regulations around age verification (e.g. on gambling) were creating more opportunities for people to use digital identity services in everyday life.

Figure 24 shows the reasons why respondents chose not to use a digital identity service when the option was available to them.

^{Figure 24: Reasons consumers chose not to use digital identity}

Preference for other methods	9%
Privacy issues	8%
Security issues	7%
Lack of awareness or uncertainty	7%
Access issues	5%
Usability issues	4%
Transparency issues	2%

^{n = 1338}

Figure 24 shows that 9% of those who have not used digital identity expressed a preference for using other methods of identity verification. 8% of those who have not used digital identity selected ‘privacy issues’. 7% selected ‘security issues’ and ‘lack of awareness or uncertainty’. Only a small percentage of those who have not used digital identity cited the reason as access issues, usability issues and transparency issues (5%, 4% and 2% respectively).

To understand these findings in a greater level of detail, the following tables breakdown respondents by demographic group and by groups at higher risk of exclusion.

Reasons for choosing not to use digital identity by age

Reasons identified	18-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-66
Access issues	15%	7%	5%	3%	4%
Usability issues	8%	3%	3%	4%	4%
Privacy issues	19%	11%	8%	7%	5%
Transparency issues	8%	3%	4%	1%	2%
Security issues	10%	8%	9%	7%	5%
Preference for other methods	3%	7%	7%	8%	12%
Lack of awareness or uncertainty	0%	5%	8%	5%	8%
None of the above	11%	16%	19%	16%	18%

^{Overall (n = 1312), 18-24 (n = 62), 25-34 (n = 181), 35-44 (n = 248), 45-54 (n = 312), 55-66 (n = 509)}

The data shows that the youngest respondents (18-24) were more likely to choose ‘access issues’ as a reason for not using digital identity than the oldest respondents (55-66), at 15% and 4% respectively. The higher percentage of 18-24 year olds who indicate that they struggle with access issues can partly be explained by more limited access to the right identification evidence to be verified (e.g. driving licenses, household bills, and information from credit reference agencies). No trend was found between levels of household annual income and reasons for choosing not to use digital identity.

5.4 Challenges to Use

The following section covers the challenges experienced by those who use digital identity.

Figure 25 shows the reported challenges experienced by those who completed the top 3 use cases: using an online gaming or gambling account, applying for a credit card or loan and setting up or managing an insurance policy online.

It should be noted that the most common response was ‘none of the above’ (61%, 58% and 55% respectively across the top 3 use cases). Subsequent validation questions tell us that almost all of the respondents who indicated ‘none of the above’, chose this option because they felt that they had not experienced any challenges and therefore, the data has been removed from Figure 25.

^{Figure 25: Challenges experienced when using digital identity by those who had completed the top 3 use cases}

Challenge	Verifying identity for online gaming or gambling account	Applying for a credit card or loan	Setting up or managing an insurance policy online
I was not sure how my privacy was being protected	16%	13%	19%
I found it difficult to complete the selfie/video process to match my face to the photo on my ID	9%	14%	13%
The service was complicated to use	14%	9%	10%
I was unsure if my data would be sold onto other third parties	10%	8%	13%
I was not sure how my data would be used and shared with third parties	12%	8%	12%
I was worried that I could have my identity stolen	8%	8%	11%
I did not have easy access to the necessary device	9%	7%	7%
I was not confident using a technology I did not know or understand	8%	5%	7%
I did not trust the digital identity provider	2%	2%	2%
I did not find the services accessible	1%	1%	1%

^{Verifying your identity for an online gaming or gambling account (n = 163), applying for a credit card or loan (n = 221), setting up or managing an insurance policy online (n = 197)}

Figure 25 shows that while experiences differed across use cases, uncertainty about privacy (‘I was not sure how many privacy was being protected’) and technical challenge linked to verification (‘I found it difficult to complete the selfie/video process to match my face to the photo on my ID’) emerged as significant reported challenges across use cases. The context of the use case is important for interpreting certain data points.

5.5 Government standards

As set out in the section in section 5.1, 75% of survey respondents indicated that adherence with government standards was either an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ factor supporting their confidence in a digital identity service.

The UK digital identity and attributes trust framework (trust framework) is a set of rules and standards published by OfDIA that sets out best practice in digital identity solutions. OfDIA has announced its commitment to issue a new government trust mark to services certified against the trust framework^{[footnote 28]}. The proposals will be implemented once the Data (Use and Access) Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. Through the consumer survey, the research team sought to understand attitudes towards the proposed trust mark. Respondents were asked for their views on ‘a government-issued logo of certification’ rather than a ‘trust mark’ to improve comprehension.

All survey respondents were asked whether a visible government-issued logo would influence their decision to use digital identity services.

^{Figure 26: Impact of ‘government logo’ on individuals’ decision to use digital identity service}

More likely to use	45%
Unsure about what impact it would have	30%
No impact on decision to use	17%
Less likely to use	8%

^{n = 3561}

The survey examined how government certification might influence willingness to use digital identity services. As shown in Figure 26, a significant proportion of respondents (45%) indicated that a government-issued certification logo would positively influence adoption, while only 8% felt that it would make them less likely to use such services. Many users also indicated that they were either unsure (30%) or felt that it would have no impact on their decision (17%).

6. Annex A: Detailed Taxonomy

Taxonomy and Sub-area	Definition
Identity Foundations
Identity issuance	Creating and distributing identity credentials
Identity and consent management	Individuals can control their identity data and its usage (e.g., consent dashboards, data rights management, privacy controls)
Digital wallets	Protected digital storage solutions for identity credentials and verified attributes (e.g., mobile identity storage, credential apps)
Identity services	Platforms providing identity-related services to support other systems
Identity Verification
Document based	Verifying identity using official documents (e.g., passport verification, driving license validation)
Biometrics and liveness detection	Using physical characteristics to verify identity and presence
Knowledge Based Verification	Verifying identity through personal information questions (e.g., historical data)
Social verification (vouching / proofing)	Verifying identity through social connections or professional references
Attribute Verification
Age assurance	Verifying a person’s age without full identity disclosure (e.g., age band estimation, date of birth validation)
Professional and credential verification	Validation of qualifications and credentials through authoritative sources (e.g., right to work checks, qualification verification, professional memberships)
Background screening	Comprehensive verification of personal and organisational history through multiple data sources (e.g., criminal record checks, sanctions screening)
Financial and address verification	Verification of financial and residence information (e.g., bank account validation)
Trust Services
Digital signatures (eSignatures)	Electronic signatures to verify document authenticity or establish audit trails (e.g., qualified electronic signatures and seals)
Certificates	Digital documentation confirming identity or attributes (e.g., SSL certificates)
Authentication	Verifying the identity of a user or system
Governance and compliance	Ensuring identity systems meet regulatory requirements
Identity Data and Intermediaries
Data brokerage	Services that aggregate and distribute identity data
Orchestration and interoperability	Coordinating various identity systems and ensuring they work together with established standards
Risk, fraud and credit	Evidence-based assessment of identity risks and financial standing (e.g., fraud detection, risk scoring)
Analytics and insights	Analysing identity data for patterns and insights

7. Annex B: Data Breakdown for Groups at Higher Risk of Exclusion

Age

Age Group	Amount of individuals	Percentage of the whole population	Comparison to ONS Estimates[footnote 29]
18-24	284	8%	13%
25-34	668	19%	22%
35-44	721	20%	21%
45-54	803	23%	21%
55-66	1033	29%	23%
NA	52	1%
Total	3561

Ethnicity

Ethnicity	Amount of individuals	Percentage of the whole population	Comparison to ONS Estimates[footnote 30]
White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British, or Other	2993	84%	82%
Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh	216	6%	9%
Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African	171	5%	3%
Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups	73	2%	3%
Other ethnic groups	33	1%	2%
Prefer not to say	75	2%	N/A
Total	3561

Annual Household Income

Income	Amount of individuals	Percentage of the whole population	Comparison to ONS Estimates[footnote 31]
£0 - 19,999	1185	33%	26%
£20,000 - £39,999	1122	32%	33%
£40,000 +	1050	29%	41%
Prefer not to say	204	6%	N/A
Total	3561

Levels of ID

Low levels of ID: no UK/EU passport or driving license

High levels of ID: possess at least one UK/EU passport or driving license

Levels of ID	Amount of individuals	Percentage of the population
Low levels of ID	847	24%
High levels of ID	2714	76%
Total	3561

Access challenges

Possess access challenges: Individuals with a condition or illness that reduces ability to carry out day-to-day activities

Do not possess access challenges: Do not have a condition or illness that reduces ability to carry out day-to-day activities

Access Challenges	Amount of individuals	Percentage of the population
Possess access challenges	1165	33%
Do not possess access challenges	2396	67%
Total	3561

Digital skill level

Low digital skill level: Individuals who selected ‘I can’t do this’ to any of the questions below

High digital skill level: Individuals who did not select ‘I can’t do this’ to any of the questions below

Questions:

• You can turn on the device and enter any account login information as required

• You can use the available controls on your device (e.g. mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, trackpad)

• You can use the different settings on your device to make it easier to use (e.g. adjust font size, volume settings, brightness of screen, voice activation or screen readers)

• You can find and open different applications/programmes/platforms on your devices (e.g. opening a web browser, messaging applications)

• You can set up a connection to a Wi-Fi network on your devices (e.g. when at home, work, out in public or visiting family and friends)

• You can open an internet browser to find and use websites (e.g. Safari, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge)

• You can keep your login information and passwords for a device and any accounts secure (e.g. not shared with anyone or written down or left prominently near a device)

• You can update and change your password when prompted to do so

Digital Skill Level	Amount of individuals	Percentage of the whole population
Low digital skill level	771	22%
High digital skill level	2790	78%
Total	3561

Digital access level

Low digital access level: Individuals who selected ‘I do not have this’ to any of the options below

High digital access level: Individuals who did not select ‘I do not have this’ to any of the options below

Questions:

• WiFi connection at home

• A computer at home

• A personal mobile phone

• A mobile phone with access to cellular data (wireless mobile internet connection)

Digital Access Level	Amount of individuals	Percentage of the whole population
Low digital access	1005	28%
High digital access	2556	72%
Total	3561

Sampling Quotas provided to Survation

Sample group	Quota	Achieved
18-66 year olds with low level digital skills	300	771
18-66 year olds with access challenges	300	1165
18-66 year olds with low levels of acceptable ID	500	847

1. Enabling the use of digital identities in the UK   ↩

2. Register of digital identity and attribute services ↩

3. Please note that 4 providers identified in the interim analysis report (n = 270) are now marked as inactive or dissolved. ↩

4. 316 UK headquartered cyber security businesses with an international office presence divided by 1,905 UK headquartered firms = 17% ↩

5. DSIT Economic Estimates: Digital Sector GVA (£161 billion) (2023) divided by 1.9 million jobs ↩

6. OneTrust press release ↩

7. GBG Customer page ↩

8. GBG Anthony Nolan ↩

9. TrustID ↩

10. TrustID case study ↩

11. esign ↩

12. esign customer stories ↩

13. Oxford start-up Onfido sale signals largest ever student-led company return on investment ↩

14. TransUnion Completes Acquisition of Callcredit ↩

15. HooYu ↩

16. Mitek press release ↩

17. UKRI ↩

18. Vouchsafe partners with Carefree to help carers access vital breaks ↩

19. Scottish Government chooses Vouchsafe to bring public services to one million Scots ↩

20. Vouchsafe raises £1m to build the next generation of identity verification ↩

21. UKRI ↩

22. Individuals over the age of 66 were intentionally not included in the sample frame on the basis that those outside of working age are less likely to have experience of proving their identity digitally ↩

23. Example of responses designed to exclude respondents who hadn’t used a digital identity service to open a bank account, according to the scope of this research: ‘I was asked to go to a local bank branch in person and show my photo ID and a proof of address’ and ‘I was asked to send an e-mail with a photo of my ID’ ↩ ↩²

24. Description provided to respondents: ‘Digital identity services are services in the UK that allow a person to prove their identity or something about themselves without needing to present physical documents. Digital identity service providers are generally private sector companies that confirm individuals’ identities or attributes by cross-referencing sources of information, such as government-issued documents like passports and driver’s licenses. A person could use this when: Opening a bank account online, Proving they have the right to work in the UK online after receiving a job offer, Verifying their identity online when renting a property, Using a mobile phone app to prove their age in a shop, or at the cinema. To what extent, if at all, do you understand the concept of a digital identity service?’ ↩

25. Annual household income brackets based on median household income: £34,500 (FY 2023) ↩

26. Percentages do not tally to 100% due to rounding ↩

27. Public dialogue on trust in digital identity services: a findings report ↩

28. Making it easy to find trustworthy digital identity and attribute services ↩

29. ONS Age by single year ↩

30. ONS Ethnic group, England and Wales: Census 2021 ↩

31. UK Family Resources Survey (2022) Summary Please note these figures are an average between 2018-2021, and rely on survey data by income bracket. ↩