Case study · Bank account calculator · money.hu · 2 months
Which bank account actually fits me?
Redesigning money.hu’s bank account comparison calculator, with a focus on mobile.
27% of visitors now contact a bank, up from 19%
The problem
People bounced early and missed most of the calculator’s features. Conversion was below target.
My role
One of two designers. I ran 3 of the 5 user interviews and focused on rethinking the result cards.
Team
2 designers, a product owner and the engineering team
Research
5 interviews with usability tests
132-person survey
5 comparison sites and bank websites
preference test with ~80 people
The problem
People were leaving the calculator before they found an account.
Heatmaps and session recordings showed users bouncing early and never reaching most of the features. The page’s conversion wasn’t where the team wanted it.
What we learned
There’s no single “best” account. Everyone defines it differently.
The research ran in four steps, each building on the last. Together they showed where the page failed and how people really choose a bank: online setup, low fees, clear card and transfer costs, the bank’s stability, ATMs and the app all mattered, but in a different order for each person.
Interviews, usability tests, synthesis workshop
They want to see their favourite bank
Each user has different preference
Questionnaire
132 people validated the interview insights at scale.
Best-practice review
5 comparison sites and bank websites.
→ Filters
→ Easy comparison
→ Key decision factors up front
What we learned
There’s no single “best” account. Everyone defines it differently.
The research ran in four steps, each building on the last. Together they showed where the page failed and how people really choose a bank: online setup, low fees, clear card and transfer costs, the bank’s stability, ATMs and the app all mattered, but in a different order for each person.
Interviews, usability tests, synthesis workshop
They want to see their favourite bank
Each user has different preference
Questionnaire
132 people validated the interview insights at scale.
Best-practice review
5 comparison sites and bank websites.
→ Filters
→ Easy comparison
→ Key decision factors up front
V1
Great for comparing accounts, but harder to read and scroll as more cards appear.
V2
Harder to compare at first glance, but clearer and easier to read overall. Also quicker to build.
The dilemma
The result cards mattered most, and the preference test was nearly a tie.
We narrowed several card designs down to two and tested them with about 80 people. The scores were close, so the written answers decided what each version was really good at.
We made the decision with engineering. Ship V2 now to meet the deadline, then add a compare checkbox on each card that shows the selected accounts in the V1 layout.
The solution
Filters, sorting and clearer details let each person define “best” for themselves.
We turned the decision factors from research into filters and sort options. Each account’s details became an accordion, so people who liked a card could dig deeper without getting lost. With a tight timeline and an established design system, we skipped low-fi wireframes and designed with existing components.
The outcome
It went live in May, 2025, and more people now act on their results.
We compared the same quarter a year apart, Q1 2025 and Q1 2026, and counted the people who clicked “I’m interested” to contact a bank. The share of visitors who used the calculator barely changed (43% → 45%), but far more of them went on to contact a bank afterwards: 6 in 10, up from 4.5 in 10. That’s the step we redesigned. Traffic was lower that quarter, so part of the change may come from a different visitor mix.
19% → 27%
Visitors who contacted a bank
45% → 60%
Calculator users who contacted a bank
+9%
Requests sent to banks, from 31% fewer visitors. One visitor can contact several banks.
What I learned
When scores are close, the reasons decide. The preference test was nearly a tie, so the written answers showed us which version to ship.
Ship what works now. Choosing the simpler version with engineering met the deadline, and a clearer card was enough to change behaviour.
