If your packaging can carry either a printed code or an embedded chip, the choice should follow the customer's interaction and the production process. Hashentic secure NFC and Scantrust Secure QR obtain authentication evidence in different ways; neither should be evaluated as an ordinary web link.
Reviewed on 5 September 2026. Written by Hashentic, one of the providers compared. The table distinguishes our implemented capabilities from the provider descriptions linked below. “Confirm” means the reviewed sources do not establish the exact feature; it is not a claim that the feature is absent. Recommendations are our assessment of fit, without comparative security testing or equivalent commercial quotes.
The decision behind the comparison
Hashentic's secure NFC route checks a dynamic chip message. Scantrust's Secure QR uses a printed copy-detection graphic. Its documented browser flow includes photographing that graphic after opening the authentication page. This makes print quality and image capture practical comparison criteria.
Use the same box or label artwork, but let each technology follow its intended verification method. A QR scan that only opens a page has not yet tested the secure graphic. Likewise, reading a static NFC URL has not tested Hashentic's secure-chip path. Measure completion and recovery through the entire interaction.
Capabilities at a glance
| Capability | Hashentic | Scantrust |
|---|---|---|
| Authentication evidence | NTAG 424 DNA and EM4425 cryptographic checks; static QR/NTAG215 are information links. | Printed copy-detection graphic in Secure QR. |
| Customer experience | Branded pages with templates selected by country, identifier type and labels. | Browser or app verification; browser flow includes a photo. |
| Product passports | Configurable records and public JSON-LD data; required content must be verified. | DPP pages and dynamic content tools. |
| Forms and automation | Forms, six triggers, ten action types and conditions; optional AI-assisted drafts. | Inspector task tools; confirm customer-form automation. |
| Integration and setup | REST API, incoming webhooks, outgoing HTTP actions; supported desktop NFC writing. | APIs and data-system integration. |
Sources: Secure QR; Authentication tools; DPP & integrations.
Hashentic: technology, forms, workflows and platform.
Pros and cons
Hashentic
Strengths
- Secure NFC, product records and customer forms can feed the same configured process.
- Your team can define follow-up actions and connect existing systems.
Limitations and trade-offs
- Secure NFC requires a suitable chip, provisioning and attachment.
- Phone antenna position and nearby metal or liquid can affect the tap experience.
Scantrust
Strengths
- A printed authentication carrier can fit existing artwork.
- Browser and app authentication options are documented.
Limitations and trade-offs
- Print quality, wear, lighting and camera capture need validation.
- Do not compare only the initial scan when measuring customer effort.
A pilot that answers the important questions
- Produce samples using the intended print or tag-provisioning process.
- Ask users to complete authentication without coaching; record retries.
- Test worn samples, poor lighting and the relevant phone models.
- Check copied graphics and repeated NFC messages with method-appropriate expectations.
Is Hashentic a Scantrust alternative?
Choose Hashentic when an NFC tap and embedded security chip fit the product, and you want configured actions after verification.
Include Scantrust when a printed security graphic is a strong packaging requirement and camera-based verification works for your users.
Compare the complete rollout
Compare final unit costs including printing or chips, quality control, provisioning, attachment and support. Record a failed-check recovery path as well as successful scans. Do not infer a universal cost or security winner from carrier price alone.
Discuss your pilot with sample products and an agreed test plan.
