RESEARCH · CONSUMER BANKING

PNC's Conversion Scorecard

PNC scored a 67.6 / 100 for customer conversion on its personal checking account application.

pnc scored 68% 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.

Where PNC Ranks

Why PNC places last for Conversion in the Consumer Deposits Category.

View on Youtube ↗

What’s behind the score.

PNC decides fast and communicates well — an active account at the end of the application, real-time email alerts, and save-and-resume from the very first screen. But the application packs 22 manually-typed fields (including an account-behavior survey) into two dense screens, and the funding path is broken: the bank connection failed with no manual fallback and no in-app direct-deposit flow, so the account was never funded. Disclosures only surfaced after approval.

22
fields mostly hand typed, including a behavioral survey
User Effort
10 min
to account access - but funding never happened
Application time
Instant
account active at the culmination of the application
Decision speed
2/5
ongoing data use understand - policies dense and hard to digest
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

Two screens to account approval — but more were required to actually fund the account and make it usable. A 5 is a single screen.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of fields

Total fields / data points supplied

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

22 fields total, inclusive of the account-behavior survey — past the 16+ floor. Best-in-class is 1–4.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Manual data entry

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

Score

2 / 5

Why this score — And not more

No pre-filled information; some dropdown-assisted fields, but mostly manual typed entry. A 3 requires working assists on core details.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Document / file uploads

Level of document collection required

Score

5 / 5

Why this score — And not more

No additional documentation was needed — the ceiling case.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Account connections

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

Score

1 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

The bank connection to fund the account was not functional, with no manual fallback and no in-app direct-deposit flow — the user would have to exit the portal entirely. The account was never funded.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Repeated actions

Number of times a user completes redundant work

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Most data entry was not redundant, but the bank connection was attempted multiple times, accounting for the lost points.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Sensitivity of information required

Clear disclaimers and reasons for requesting sensitive PII throughout.

Score

4 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Sensitive information was explained with callouts reassuring why each ask was necessary. A 5 adds strong, visible controls throughout.

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 — no human review, follow-ups, or tickets.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of follow-up actions required

Zero follow-up tasks — submission was complete and decisionable.

Score

4 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

Fully contained until the failed bank connection forced an additional task outside the application flow. A 5 means zero follow-up tasks.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Error recovery & resilience

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

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

The application saved from the first screen, and email notifications prompted the user to resume where they left off across sittings.

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	Two screens to account approval — but more were required to actually fund the account and make it usable. A 5 is a single screen.
Total number of fields Total fields / data points supplied	1 / 5	22 fields total, inclusive of the account-behavior survey — past the 16+ floor. Best-in-class is 1–4.
Manual data entry Information the user must type in manually, excluding uploads and account connections	2 / 5	No pre-filled information; some dropdown-assisted fields, but mostly manual typed entry. A 3 requires working assists on core details.
Document / file uploads Level of document collection required	5 / 5	No additional documentation was needed — the ceiling case.
Account connections Level of account connections required or optional, and how they improve the experience	1 / 5 · ceiling	The bank connection to fund the account was not functional, with no manual fallback and no in-app direct-deposit flow — the user would have to exit the portal entirely. The account was never funded.
Repeated actions Number of times a user completes redundant work	3 / 5	Most data entry was not redundant, but the bank connection was attempted multiple times, accounting for the lost points.
Sensitivity of information required Clear disclaimers and reasons for requesting sensitive PII throughout.	4 / 5	Sensitive information was explained with callouts reassuring why each ask was necessary. A 5 adds strong, visible controls throughout.
User self-sufficiency Can the user complete the application on their own	5 / 5 · ceiling	Fully self-sufficient — no human review, follow-ups, or tickets.
Total number of follow-up actions required Zero follow-up tasks — submission was complete and decisionable.	4 / 5 · ceiling	Fully contained until the failed bank connection forced an additional task outside the application flow. A 5 means zero follow-up tasks.
Error recovery & resilience The text with the application link made resuming very quick and easy.	5 / 5 · ceiling	The application saved from the first screen, and email notifications prompted the user to resume where they left off across sittings.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time from first screen to completion screen

Stopwatch “start” → “complete”

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

The approval came in under 4:30, but the account was never funded because of drop off at the failed external bank connection. A 5 is ≤4 minutes.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time to complete follow-up requests

Funding requires exiting the application portal, but would take under 24 hours to complete. A 5 means no follow-up requests at all.

Score

4 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

No follow-up requests were required at all — the ceiling case.

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”	1 / 5	The approval came in under 4:30, but the account was never funded because of drop off at the failed external bank connection. A 5 is ≤4 minutes.
Time to complete follow-up requests Funding requires exiting the application portal, but would take under 24 hours to complete. A 5 means no follow-up requests at all.	4 / 5 · ceiling	No follow-up requests were required at all — the ceiling case.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time to final decision, from application start

Stopwatch “start” → account open / decision made

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

The account was active at the culmination of the application — an instant decision.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time between communications

Responsiveness for additional tasks needed to move the application forward

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

Real-time email alerts conveyed account status and next steps at every handoff.

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	5 / 5 · ceiling	The account was active at the culmination of the application — an instant decision.
Time between communications Responsiveness for additional tasks needed to move the application forward	5 / 5 · ceiling	Real-time email alerts conveyed account status and next steps at every handoff.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Clarity of approval

Is a “why” stated for the outcome

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

No clear indication of why the account was opened — a basic outcome with standard next steps. A 4 states specific reason categories.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Ongoing data usage understanding

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

Score

2 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Disclosures were dense AND unavailable within the application flow — policies only surfaced after the account was approved. A 3 requires clear, accessible explanations.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Data privacy controls

Can I control permissions over who sees what

Score

2 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Some controls outlined, but not evident what or how data will be used — and unclear why a wireless company was included in the disclosures. A 3 requires basic permission controls and revocation.

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	3 / 5	No clear indication of why the account was opened — a basic outcome with standard next steps. A 4 states specific reason categories.
Ongoing data usage understanding Do I know how my data is used on an ongoing basis	2 / 5	Disclosures were dense AND unavailable within the application flow — policies only surfaced after the account was approved. A 3 requires clear, accessible explanations.
Data privacy controls Can I control permissions over who sees what	2 / 5	Some controls outlined, but not evident what or how data will be used — and unclear why a wireless company was included in the disclosures. A 3 requires basic permission controls and revocation.

Opportunity

Highlights

Wins, losses, and what the network would fix.

Category: User effort
Wins: No documents required; save-and-resume from the very first screen with email prompts; sensitive asks explained with reassuring callouts; fully self-sufficient.
Losses: 22 hand-typed fields including a 4-question behavior survey, and a funding connection that failed with no manual fallback — the account was never funded.
Opportunities: Network pre-fill would remove 16 of 23 fields, and a reliable pre-verified funding connection would close the loop that currently forces users out of the portal.

Category: Application time
Wins: The decision itself was granted in under 4:30.
Losses: Account access took closer to 10 minutes with the survey and disclosure reviews — and funding still requires exiting the portal.
Opportunities: Pre-filled identity and ID details would compress the survey-heavy flow to a single confirm pass, well under the 4-minute ceiling.

Category: Decision speed
Wins: Account active at the culmination of the application, with real-time email alerts and clear next steps to fund the account.
Losses: —
Opportunities: —

Category: Outcome transparency
Wins: Standard next steps stated at approval.
Losses: No reason given for the outcome; disclosures dense and only available after approval; unexplained third parties (a wireless company) in the disclosures.
Opportunities: In-flow, plain-language disclosures with stated decision drivers and revocable controls would lift the weakest category.

Opportunity highlights by category: wins, losses, and what the network would fix.
Category	Wins	Losses	Opportunities
User effort	No documents required; save-and-resume from the very first screen with email prompts; sensitive asks explained with reassuring callouts; fully self-sufficient.	22 hand-typed fields including a 4-question behavior survey, and a funding connection that failed with no manual fallback — the account was never funded.	Network pre-fill would remove 16 of 23 fields, and a reliable pre-verified funding connection would close the loop that currently forces users out of the portal.
Application time	The decision itself was granted in under 4:30.	Account access took closer to 10 minutes with the survey and disclosure reviews — and funding still requires exiting the portal.	Pre-filled identity and ID details would compress the survey-heavy flow to a single confirm pass, well under the 4-minute ceiling.
Decision speed	Account active at the culmination of the application, with real-time email alerts and clear next steps to fund the account.	—	—
Outcome transparency	Standard next steps stated at approval.	No reason given for the outcome; disclosures dense and only available after approval; unexplained third parties (a wireless company) in the disclosures.	In-flow, plain-language disclosures with stated decision drivers and revocable controls would lift the weakest category.

PNC's Conversion Scorecard

Why SOLO Scores

Where PNC Ranks

What’s behind the score.

Methodology

Opportunity

Highlights

Replace repetitive workflows with reusable network memory.

Replace repetitive workflows with reusable network memory.