It sounds another hype.
2 being larger than 1, it looks obvious that the 2-factor solutions should provide more or less higher security than 1-factor solutions, but with caveats.
1. What works in the unguarded outdoor environment necessarily works as well in the guarded indoor environment, but what works indoor does not necessarily work as well outdoor.
However sophisticated the physical tokens may be, the security obtained by the possession of the token would be lost altogether when the PC/tablet/phone gets stolen together with the physical token. We should not assume that attackers who have the chance to steal the PC/tablet/phone will always refrain from stealing the physical token.
If a password is supposed to stay as another factor against such threats, it is not appropriate to call the scheme a post-password plan.
2. Biometric solutions could be one of the 2 factors only if their false rejection rates are zero when the false acceptance rates are close to zero in the outdoor environment. For they would otherwise require something else (possibly a password) for self-rescue in the outdoor environment where there is no such manager who takes care of the falsely rejected user. The overall security cannot be higher than when only that “something” was used.
Convenience should not be a replacement for security.