Millions of people are ready to invest in something more profitable than a traditional deposit. But the reality of today’s invest-tech landscape is this: the absence of onboarding, smart hints, and thoughtful filters turns the search for “reliable 20%” returns into a frustrating quest — one that kills motivation just a few clicks in.
We explored the full journey of a beginner investor using two major investment apps from Eastern Europe — one operated by a leading universal bank, and the other by one of the region’s largest brokerage firms. Together, these platforms serve millions of retail investors. Our research uncovered 29 UX barriers that erode trust and limit the growth potential of the digital bond market.
The investor is a beginner, considering bonds as an alternative to deposits. They lack formal financial education, investment experience, and deep knowledge of financial instruments. Their interest is often driven by promotional messages about high returns.
User task: Invest funds for 1–1.5 years with an expected return of 20% per year.
User goal: Find reliable bonds with minimal risks and better returns than a bank deposit.
App comparison criteria:
We mapped out key interaction points and friction zones using a CJM (Customer Journey Map) in Miro. The main insights, UX improvement recommendations, and market trends are presented in this article.
Neither app provided a simple or intuitive journey for a beginner investor looking to purchase bonds with specific conditions. Users are met with a lack of educational content, helpful prompts, or adaptation to their level of experience. This becomes even more problematic when complex investment tools — requiring specialized knowledge or investor status — are presented without any distinction.
No user-level adaptation: Both apps treat all users the same, regardless of their experience. Everyone is shown the same interface, the same volume of information, and the same toolset. For beginners, this significantly complicates the first steps.
Suggested solution: Add an onboarding survey on the first login to assess the user’s investment experience. Based on the response, customize the home screen to highlight relevant sections and educational content.
Poorly designed filter system: Filtering tools are often illogical, with some parameters left unexplained. There are no tooltips for key financial terms, which are crucial for making informed decisions. In one of the apps, users couldn’t even filter for reliable bonds — the option simply didn’t exist.
Suggested improvements:
No onboarding on the main screen: On first launch, users don’t receive any guidance, prompts, or suggestions about what to do next — or which bonds might be a good fit. This is particularly critical for inexperienced investors.
Suggested improvements:
Complex path to task completion: To find suitable bonds, the user must go through at least four steps: login → find the bond section → adjust filters → browse the list.
Suggested improvements:
Both apps show a mix of helpful features and critical gaps in their filtering systems:
While the number and sequence of steps required to purchase a bond are nearly identical across both apps, there are notable differences in content accessibility:
In brokerage-based app, informational content is hidden in a carousel of investment recommendations, making it difficult for the user to find at the right moment. In contrast, the second app places a clearly labeled link with explanatory content at the top of the bond selection page — making it more accessible and contextually relevant.
Problems identified:
Most of these were related to the lack of supporting and educational materials at key stages of the customer journey. This is particularly problematic for inexperienced investors.
Our hypothesis: These apps offer users a set of tools and features that are not tailored to their actual needs or skill levels.
User need: Understand where to begin and how to choose the right bond — without making a costly mistake. The user is anxious because they don’t know which instruments match their goals. They expect the app to provide some guidance: what to tap, which parameters matter, what the terms mean, and how to start the selection process.
What would help:
Neither app gives the user confidence that they can successfully complete their goal. When a beginner investor arrives full of uncertainty and questions — “how do I choose?”, “will I lose money?” — the interface fails to provide emotional support or reduce frustration.
The lack of clear entry points, contextual guidance, or onboarding creates a stressful first impression and increases the chances that the user will abandon the process altogether.
User need: Quickly access the section with relevant bonds while avoiding distracting or irrelevant content. This is especially important for beginner investors who are not ready to explore the full range of instruments on their own.
What would help:
Without a clear link to the right bond section, users are left with two less-than-ideal paths:
Both options are too complex for someone new to investing.
Bank-based investment app provides a more direct and understandable path to the bond selection screen — no unnecessary steps, and the interface is focused on the task. Brokerage-based investment app requires more fragmented navigation, and its content-heavy design can overwhelm inexperienced users.
User need: See only those bonds that meet their personal investment criteria — yield, reliability, and maturity.
What would help users navigate the filters:
A beginner investor is most likely to focus on filters like yield to maturity, investment period, and reliability. For the other filters, they may need additional explanations in order to make informed decisions. This reduces anxiety, saves time, and helps avoid costly mistakes.
Both apps fall short when it comes to providing complete understanding of their filter systems. Without clear explanations, users can’t take full advantage of the filtering tools — which degrades the quality of decisions and may lead to abandoning the process altogether.
In Bank-based investment app, the user gets more structured in-filter information, but educational content is poorly highlighted, and hints are often insufficient.
In Brokerage-based investment app, the tooltips are more focused, and the connection to learning content is easier to access — but the absence of a reliability filter is a critical gap.
Suggested improvements:
User need: Choose the most suitable bond from the list with minimal effort and time investment.
What would help:
Access to educational content and integrated tips would help reduce anxiety and give users confidence in their decision-making.
In both apps, when users reach the bond list, they’re left alone with a wall of numbers — and plenty of uncertainty. A quick and confident decision becomes unlikely.
The problem: Even after filtering, the list is long, options look similar, and explanations are missing.
The feeling: “I don’t know which bond to pick” — and “I’m not sure I did this right.”
The risk: Users may give up entirely and return to deposits — a more familiar, seemingly safer option.
Quick wins for improvement:
These changes would help users feel more confident, make faster decisions — and reduce the chance of churn.
User need: Understand whether this particular bond is a good choice for investing their money.
What would help:
These features would help users feel more confident and fully understand what they’re committing to before making a purchase.
The bond detail page in both apps acts more like a raw data dump than a decision-making assistant. It shows information — but doesn’t help interpret it.
The problem: Too much data, too little meaning. Users see numbers but don’t know what they mean.
The feeling: Uncertainty and fear of making the wrong choice.
The risk: Calculation errors, incorrect decisions, reduced trust in the platform, and possible withdrawal from the investment process.
Both apps fail to fulfill an educational and supportive role. Without a calculator, tags, hints, or a comparison mechanism, the bond screen is overloaded — but not useful.
Suggested improvements:
These changes would lower the risk of user error, increase trust, and maintain interest in bond investing.
User need: Complete the purchase of the selected bond with clarity and confidence.
What would help:
These features help the user focus on the primary action — completing the purchase — and avoid frustration caused by unclear errors or missing options.
At this stage, the user needs to feel confident that they’ve calculated everything correctly and understand exactly what they’re paying for.
The problem: Transparent pricing is critical — and both apps fall short in different ways.
The feeling: Lack of clarity when the balance is zero or when the total amount doesn’t make sense can lead to frustration.
The risk: Calculation errors, failed purchases, reduced trust.
Even though both apps display key numbers (commission, ACI), this isn’t enough without explanation — especially for first-time investors.
Suggested improvements:
This is especially important for beginners: the fewer doubts they have during the purchase, the more likely they are to complete it — and return.
Both apps provide a wide range of bond sorting options — by volume, yield, name, maturity date, and other parameters. However, neither app offers explanations for what these filters mean or how they can help users refine their search.
For first-time users, the lack of guidance makes the process harder and more error-prone. In the worst-case scenario, this can lead to abandonment and lost customers.
For beginner investors — whose key criteria are typically yield to maturity, maturity term, bond reliability, and investor status — several UX problems remain unresolved:
Finally, having sorting options for price in both percentage and currency terms significantly improves usability — helping users review bonds in the format that suits them best.
Request a personalized audit or benchmark analysis to uncover usability issues, compare your product to top-performing apps, and identify what it takes to win investor trust.
1. Personalized recommendations and analytics
Modern investment apps increasingly offer personalized yield forecasts and detailed risk analyses. These features help users select bonds that match their investment goals — for example, targeting 20% returns with minimal risk.
2. Advanced filtering and monitoring tools
Bond platforms now provide expanded filtering options based on yield, maturity, issuer reliability, and more. This allows both novice and experienced investors to find suitable instruments and track their performance in real time.
3. Risk analysis tools
New risk assessment tools are emerging that help users estimate the likelihood of achieving investment goals. These include individual investor preference settings and predictive risk models.
4. AI-powered analytics and forecasting
Apps are starting to offer AI-based projections, including yield graphs and predictive analytics. These tools help users better estimate potential returns and optimize their bond choices.
5. Robo-advisors and bond ratings
Digital advisors now assist beginners by providing curated lists, reliability ratings, and personalized investment suggestions — streamlining the onboarding process and portfolio creation.
6. Integrated educational content
Brokerage apps are also expanding their in-app education offerings, helping users better understand financial products, including how bonds work and what risks they carry.
These trends highlight how investment platforms are evolving to meet user expectations. By improving functionality and usability, they make it easier for investors — especially beginners — to confidently manage their bond investments and pursue higher returns with lower perceived risk.
Every year we conduct up to 15 studies of digital services. These are industry benchmarks that reflect the state of the market and trends.
