---
url: 'https://www.corbado.com/passkey-benchmark-2026/conditional-ui-usage'
title: 'Conditional UI Login Completion Benchmark'
description: 'Conditional UI login benchmark showing how passkey suggestions affect completed desktop sign-ins.'
lang: 'en'
dir: 'ltr'
keywords: 'conditional UI, passkey autofill, conditional mediation, passkey login completion'
---

# Conditional UI Login Completion

[← all benchmarks](https://www.corbado.com/passkey-benchmark-2026.md)

Conditional UI Login Completion compares the pre-server login path when users type an identifier versus when field-level passkey help is available. It shows why server-side passkey success can look near-perfect while real Conditional UI performance depends on field wiring, user choice, final login completion and speed.

## Where Conditional UI actually breaks: the three measurement points

*Q1 2026 · conditional UI at three measurement points*

Conditional UI (CUI) usually gets reported as one number: the server-side success rate. That number sits at the very end of the flow and looks close to perfect. The two earlier numbers, where users actually drop out, are below.

1. **First suggestion interaction** — *55–90%*. Users pick and complete the first visible passkey suggestion. This is the pre-server moment: the suggestion is visible, the user chooses it and the browser verification finishes. Drop-off here means users dismiss the prompt, switch accounts, cannot unlock locally, have no usable credential on the device or abandon before a signed request exists.
2. **Final CUI-path login** — *90–95%*. Login succeeds after retries and fallback are included. The login eventually succeeds, sometimes after another CUI attempt, autofill or typed fallback. This is the user-facing completion number.
3. **The metric most teams report** — *97–99%*. Server validation succeeds after a signed request is submitted. This number is useful for server reliability, but it starts after the Conditional UI user experience already worked.

### Main comparison: manual vs. assisted entry

| Browser | Manual full | Assisted full | Assisted Δ | Manual retry 5m | Assisted retry 5m |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| macOS Chrome | 86% | 91% | +4pp | 25% | 32% |
| macOS Safari | 83% | 91% | +9pp | 23% | 23% |
| Windows Chrome | 87% | 89% | +2pp | 22% | 24% |
| Windows Edge | 86% | 88% | +2pp | 21% | 21% |

### Assisted-entry breakdown

| Browser | CUI share within assisted | CUI full completion | Protected autofill | Unprotected autofill |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| macOS Chrome | 28% | 94% | 91% | 89% |
| macOS Safari | 49% | 94% | 87% | 89% |
| Windows Chrome | 11% | 94% | 86% | 89% |
| Windows Edge | 9% | 94% | 86% | 88% |

### Where Conditional UI Turns Into Adoption

The decisive number is not whether the browser supports Conditional UI. It is how often a real user sees the right passkey suggestion at the right moment, then reaches the login without account confusion, password-manager detours or manual fallback.

Use these signals to read your own deployment.

- **Low suggestion share** (Eligibility gap): Look for missing credential coverage, passkeys on another device, incorrect field wiring, password-manager overlays, RP/account-context mismatches or a rollout that has not built enough credential base yet.
- **Indirect completion** (Routing gap): Users still sign in, but not directly. The optimization target is speed and directness: reduce identifier detours, support recovery and use recognized-device or one-tap entry where the context is strong enough.

### Notes

1. Final login completion is merged across follow-on interactions within the same login process: users can switch accounts, dismiss a prompt, retry CUI or fall back to typing before the login eventually completes.
2. A valid Conditional UI assertion is almost always accepted server-side; the measurement gap sits before the assertion exists. Server-only reporting therefore looks healthier than the real login-entry experience.
3. Conditional UI share within assisted entry depends on the deployment's device mix and how long the product has been live. Windows desktop deployments often show a smaller local suggestion base because many users hold their usable passkeys on phones rather than the current device.
4. Healthy autofill behavior is a prerequisite for healthy Conditional Create. See [Conditional Create Rate](/passkey-benchmark-2026/conditional-create.md) for the inverse view, where autofill quality predicts how often a passkey gets created automatically after a successful password login.

## Bring your numbers to the benchmark.

*Q1 2026 · beyond the public report*

**Asking yourself:**

- *How does this look in **your** country?*
- *Is your customer mix older or younger than the average we publish?*
- *Want the per-segment breakdown we cannot publish?*

The public report is a slice. Corbado Research holds the full picture — by country, vertical and cohort. Tell us your context and we will run the comparison against your deployment.

[Contact us for the full picture →](https://www.corbado.com/contact-sales)

## Further Reading

Curated Corbado research and primary references.

- **Implementation · web.dev** — [Sign in with a passkey through form autofill](https://web.dev/articles/passkey-form-autofill) — Google’s implementation guide for conditional UI in existing username and password forms.
- **Conditional UI · Corbado blog** — [WebAuthn Conditional UI Passkeys & Autofill](https://www.corbado.com/blog/webauthn-conditional-ui-passkeys-autofill) — A practical explanation of passkey autofill, conditional mediation and identifier-field wiring.
- **Device support · passkeys.dev** — [Passkey Device Support](https://passkeys.dev/device-support/) — Compatibility matrix for passkey autofill and sign-in behavior across platforms and browsers.

[← all benchmarks](https://www.corbado.com/passkey-benchmark-2026.md)

---

*Annual benchmark for passkey readiness, creation, usage and adoption strategy by Corbado, the passkey intelligence platform for CIAM teams. [Learn more →](https://www.corbado.com).*