Business

Capital One's Conversion Scorecard

Capital One scored a 59 / 100 for customer conversion on its business bank account application when completed by a business owner.

Capital One scored 59% on the solo conversion scorecard

Why SOLO Scores

SOLO works with 100s of fintech programs to optimize the unit economics and customer conversion of their data collection processes on behalf of their sponsor banks. This research provides a baseline for the impacts of data reusability through the SOLO network.

What’s behind the score.

Capital One's initial application is fast to fill and asks nothing twice: under ten minutes of hands-on time, no account connections, sensitive data staged in a sensible order, and an applicant who finished without help. What holds the score back happens after the first “submit” button — 70 fields with no pre-fill, then three document requests that arrived more than 24 hours later through a confusing portal, stretching a ten-minute application into a multi-day wait for an account that still was not funded.

data fields across 12 screens
User Effort
start to finish, inclusive of follow up tasks
Application time
proactive updates between submission and the first follow up task
Decision speed
across all data transparency sub-metric — disclosures present but dense
Outcome transparency

Methodology

SOLO reviewed the application across four primary categories: User Effort, Application Time, Decision Speed, and Outcome Transparency. Each sub-metric is scored 1–5 against a fixed rubric.

Full Scorecard

17 SUB-METRICS

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of screens

How many times the user clicks to the next screen

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

12 screens in total — well past the ≥5-screen floor: account selection, existing-customer check, personal identity, residential address and contact, business structure and tax classification, entity details, business address, two screens of business-activity questionnaires, control-person certification, beneficial-owner details, and terms.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of fields

Total fields / data points supplied

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

70 fields, including the business-activity questionnaires — nearly three times the ≥25 floor band. Best-in-class is ≤7 fields, which requires sourcing almost all of this from data the customer has already furnished elsewhere.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Manual data entry

Information the user must type in manually, excluding uploads and account connections

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

No prefill of any kind. Every field — identity, address, entity detail, ownership — is typed by hand, with no structured assist beyond standard dropdowns. A 2 would require at least browser- or device-level prefill; a 3 requires assist supplied by the bank itself.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Document / file uploads

Level of document collection required

Score

2 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Three document requests arrived after submission: a formation document, verification of the legal business name (unclear whether the Articles could satisfy both), and proof of physical operating address — the original address was flagged as a CMRA only after the application was in. The secure-link portal was also confusing in what it accepted, offering a driver's license as proof of business address. A score of 3 requires 1–2 common documents with clear requirements.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Account connections

Level of account connections required or optional, and how they improve the experience

Score

3 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

No account connections required. However, the account remained unfunded — the customer was stopped while waiting for a decision before funding was possible, so technically not yet onboarded. A 5 requires any connection to be functional with a clear payoff; here there was no funding path to evaluate.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Repeated actions

Number of times a user completes redundant work

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

Questions are not redundant — the application only asks for net-new facts. No information is re-requested across steps.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Sensitivity of information required

How much trust is required of the user, and whether it is merited

Score

4 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

Requests sensitive elements such as SSN, but not excessively, and stages them in an appropriate order. A 5 requires clear rationale, strong controls and visible privacy protections throughout the flow.

Sub-metric · What's measured

User self-sufficiency

Can the user complete the application on their own

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

Fully self-sufficient: the applicant completed the application end to end without human assistance. The most significant interruption was needing to ask a second person for owner details.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of follow-up actions required

All tasks completed within the same application flow — zero follow-ups.

Score

2 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Three document uploads were required after submission, in addition to funding the account. That is 3–4 follow-up tasks; a score of 3 requires two, and best-in-class is a submission that is complete and decisionable on its own.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Error recovery & resilience

The text with the application link made resuming very quick and easy.

Score

1 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

No save or resume exists within the application. This applicant did not need it, but a closed window or drop-off means starting over. A 3 requires save/resume that exists and works.

User effort. Full Conversion Scorecard methodology by category and sub-metric.
Sub-metric · What's measured	Score	Why this score — And not more
Total number of screens How many times the user clicks to the next screen	1 / 5	12 screens in total — well past the ≥5-screen floor: account selection, existing-customer check, personal identity, residential address and contact, business structure and tax classification, entity details, business address, two screens of business-activity questionnaires, control-person certification, beneficial-owner details, and terms.
Total number of fields Total fields / data points supplied	1 / 5	70 fields, including the business-activity questionnaires — nearly three times the ≥25 floor band. Best-in-class is ≤7 fields, which requires sourcing almost all of this from data the customer has already furnished elsewhere.
Manual data entry Information the user must type in manually, excluding uploads and account connections	1 / 5	No prefill of any kind. Every field — identity, address, entity detail, ownership — is typed by hand, with no structured assist beyond standard dropdowns. A 2 would require at least browser- or device-level prefill; a 3 requires assist supplied by the bank itself.
Document / file uploads Level of document collection required	2 / 5	Three document requests arrived after submission: a formation document, verification of the legal business name (unclear whether the Articles could satisfy both), and proof of physical operating address — the original address was flagged as a CMRA only after the application was in. The secure-link portal was also confusing in what it accepted, offering a driver's license as proof of business address. A score of 3 requires 1–2 common documents with clear requirements.
Account connections Level of account connections required or optional, and how they improve the experience	3 / 5 · ceiling	No account connections required. However, the account remained unfunded — the customer was stopped while waiting for a decision before funding was possible, so technically not yet onboarded. A 5 requires any connection to be functional with a clear payoff; here there was no funding path to evaluate.
Repeated actions Number of times a user completes redundant work	5 / 5 · ceiling	Questions are not redundant — the application only asks for net-new facts. No information is re-requested across steps.
Sensitivity of information required How much trust is required of the user, and whether it is merited	4 / 5 · ceiling	Requests sensitive elements such as SSN, but not excessively, and stages them in an appropriate order. A 5 requires clear rationale, strong controls and visible privacy protections throughout the flow.
User self-sufficiency Can the user complete the application on their own	5 / 5 · ceiling	Fully self-sufficient: the applicant completed the application end to end without human assistance. The most significant interruption was needing to ask a second person for owner details.
Total number of follow-up actions required All tasks completed within the same application flow — zero follow-ups.	2 / 5	Three document uploads were required after submission, in addition to funding the account. That is 3–4 follow-up tasks; a score of 3 requires two, and best-in-class is a submission that is complete and decisionable on its own.
Error recovery & resilience The text with the application link made resuming very quick and easy.	1 / 5 · ceiling	No save or resume exists within the application. This applicant did not need it, but a closed window or drop-off means starting over. A 3 requires save/resume that exists and works.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time from first screen to completion screen

Stopwatch “start” → “complete”

Score

4 / 5

Why this score — And not more

The application was completed in 9:47 — inside the 7–10 minute band — not inclusive of account funding or the document uploads that followed. Best-in-class is ≤7 minutes.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time to complete follow-up requests

Time it takes the user to complete assigned follow-up tasks

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

The follow-up request was delivered more than 24 hours after submission and resolved within 1–3 days. At least one further follow-up — funding the account by connection or manual deposit — is still expected. A 4 requires follow-ups completed within 24 hours.

Application time. Full Conversion Scorecard methodology by category and sub-metric.
Sub-metric · What's measured	Score	Why this score — And not more
Time from first screen to completion screen Stopwatch “start” → “complete”	4 / 5	The application was completed in 9:47 — inside the 7–10 minute band — not inclusive of account funding or the document uploads that followed. Best-in-class is ≤7 minutes.
Time to complete follow-up requests Time it takes the user to complete assigned follow-up tasks	3 / 5	The follow-up request was delivered more than 24 hours after submission and resolved within 1–3 days. At least one further follow-up — funding the account by connection or manual deposit — is still expected. A 4 requires follow-ups completed within 24 hours.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time to final decision, from application start

Stopwatch “start” → account open / decision made

Score

3 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

Over 24 hours to receive the follow-up request, then another two days to complete it once the applicant re-opened the link — a full application period of multiple days, in the 1–3 day band. A 4 requires a decision inside 24 hours.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time between communications

Responsiveness for additional tasks needed to move the application forward

Score

3 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

No proactive communication beyond a confirmation that the application was complete and pending. Responses landed within roughly 24 hours; a 4 requires updates within four business hours with clear status tracking.

Decision speed. Full Conversion Scorecard methodology by category and sub-metric.
Sub-metric · What's measured	Score	Why this score — And not more
Time to final decision, from application start Stopwatch “start” → account open / decision made	3 / 5 · ceiling	Over 24 hours to receive the follow-up request, then another two days to complete it once the applicant re-opened the link — a full application period of multiple days, in the 1–3 day band. A 4 requires a decision inside 24 hours.
Time between communications Responsiveness for additional tasks needed to move the application forward	3 / 5 · ceiling	No proactive communication beyond a confirmation that the application was complete and pending. Responses landed within roughly 24 hours; a 4 requires updates within four business hours with clear status tracking.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Clarity of approval

Is a “why” stated for the outcome

Score

4 / 5

Why this score — And not more

The pending outcome clearly explained what other criteria had to be satisfied after the initial application, with concrete next steps and a direct path to move forward via the secure document link.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Ongoing data usage understanding

Do I know how my data is used on an ongoing basis

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Policies exist and are accessible, but live in the terms and conditions rather than in plain language tied to the applicant's actions. A 4 requires ongoing visibility — status, notices, periodic reminders.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Data privacy controls

Can I control permissions over who sees what

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Standard controls are available, but nothing in the flow calls out ongoing data usage or who can access what. A 5 requires fine-grained, revocable controls with full transparency and a portable permission history.

Outcome transparency. Full Conversion Scorecard methodology by category and sub-metric.
Sub-metric · What's measured	Score	Why this score — And not more
Clarity of approval Is a “why” stated for the outcome	4 / 5	The pending outcome clearly explained what other criteria had to be satisfied after the initial application, with concrete next steps and a direct path to move forward via the secure document link.
Ongoing data usage understanding Do I know how my data is used on an ongoing basis	3 / 5	Policies exist and are accessible, but live in the terms and conditions rather than in plain language tied to the applicant's actions. A 4 requires ongoing visibility — status, notices, periodic reminders.
Data privacy controls Can I control permissions over who sees what	3 / 5	Standard controls are available, but nothing in the flow calls out ongoing data usage or who can access what. A 5 requires fine-grained, revocable controls with full transparency and a portable permission history.

Opportunity

Highlights

Wins, losses, and what the network would fix.

Category: User effort
Wins: Nothing is asked twice — every question is a net-new fact. Sensitive data such as SSN is requested only where needed and staged in a sensible order, no account connections are required, and the applicant finished the form entirely on their own.
Losses: 70 fields across 12 screens with zero prefill — including two screens of business-activity questionnaires. Three document requests landed after submission through a confusing portal (a driver's license offered as proof of business address), and there is no save or resume if the window closes.
Opportunities: A reusable KYB certificate clears the formation documents, legal-name verification and operating-address evidence in one permission — the three uploads disappear. Identity, address, ownership and citizenship for the applicant and each owner are prefilled from the network; the customer confirms rather than types.

Category: Application time
Wins: 9:47 from first screen to submission — the 7–10 minute band — despite 70 hand-typed fields. The form itself is efficient, however it delayed the friction rather than removes it.
Losses: The follow-up request arrived more than 24 hours after submission, and completing it took another two days once the applicant re-opened the link. The timer effectively restarts after “submit.”
Opportunities: With entity and identity data prefilled and documents already verified, the application collapses to a few confirmations — under three minutes — and the post-submission document cycle is removed entirely.

Category: Decision speed
Wins: Submission was acknowledged immediately with a confirmation that the application was complete and pending.
Losses: No proactive communication beyond that confirmation. The first follow-up took over 24 hours, the full application period ran to multiple days, and the account remained unfunded — the customer was still not onboarded.
Opportunities: Pre-verified network evidence makes the application decisionable at submission: the manual document review that drove the multi-day wait has nothing left to review.

Category: Outcome transparency
Wins: The pending outcome clearly explained which additional criteria had to be satisfied before a decision could be made.
Losses: Data-use policies exist but are buried in the terms and conditions, and there is no call-out of how data is used on an ongoing basis or any control over who can see what.
Opportunities: Consent-based sharing gives the applicant a plain-language, revocable view of what was shared, with whom and why — turning the buried T&C language into a visible control surface.

Opportunity highlights by category: wins, losses, and what the network would fix.
Category	Wins	Losses	Opportunities
User effort	Nothing is asked twice — every question is a net-new fact. Sensitive data such as SSN is requested only where needed and staged in a sensible order, no account connections are required, and the applicant finished the form entirely on their own.	70 fields across 12 screens with zero prefill — including two screens of business-activity questionnaires. Three document requests landed after submission through a confusing portal (a driver's license offered as proof of business address), and there is no save or resume if the window closes.	A reusable KYB certificate clears the formation documents, legal-name verification and operating-address evidence in one permission — the three uploads disappear. Identity, address, ownership and citizenship for the applicant and each owner are prefilled from the network; the customer confirms rather than types.
Application time	9:47 from first screen to submission — the 7–10 minute band — despite 70 hand-typed fields. The form itself is efficient, however it delayed the friction rather than removes it.	The follow-up request arrived more than 24 hours after submission, and completing it took another two days once the applicant re-opened the link. The timer effectively restarts after “submit.”	With entity and identity data prefilled and documents already verified, the application collapses to a few confirmations — under three minutes — and the post-submission document cycle is removed entirely.
Decision speed	Submission was acknowledged immediately with a confirmation that the application was complete and pending.	No proactive communication beyond that confirmation. The first follow-up took over 24 hours, the full application period ran to multiple days, and the account remained unfunded — the customer was still not onboarded.	Pre-verified network evidence makes the application decisionable at submission: the manual document review that drove the multi-day wait has nothing left to review.
Outcome transparency	The pending outcome clearly explained which additional criteria had to be satisfied before a decision could be made.	Data-use policies exist but are buried in the terms and conditions, and there is no call-out of how data is used on an ongoing basis or any control over who can see what.	Consent-based sharing gives the applicant a plain-language, revocable view of what was shared, with whom and why — turning the buried T&C language into a visible control surface.

Capital One's Conversion Scorecard

Why SOLO Scores

What’s behind the score.

Methodology

Opportunity

Highlights

Replace repetitive workflows with reusable network memory.

Replace repetitive workflows with reusable network memory.