RESEARCH · CONSUMER BANKING

Relay's Conversion Scorecard

Relay scored an 81.2 / 100 for customer conversion on its business bank account application.

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 Relay Ranked

See where Relay landed in the review and rankings of the Conversion Scorecard for Business Checking Accounts.

View on Youtube ↗

What’s behind the score.

Relay converts fast — a 9-minute application, an instant decision, and a working funding connection — but it makes the customer do the work: 39 fields across 13 screens plus a phone, mostly manual entry, with personal details like address, phone, and SSN asked at least twice for a sole owner.

personal details — address, phone, SSN — entered at least twice
User Effort
to complete the application — 13:11 including account funding
Application time
Instant
decision — the account was immediately active and fundable
Decision speed
explanations for why sensitive information was collected, or how it's used
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

14 total screens across the main site and phone verification — past the 5+ screen floor.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of fields

Total fields / data points supplied

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

39 fields overall — the heaviest in the cohort, well past the ≥25 floor.

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

The vast majority was typed manually; some data was helpfully pulled from uploaded documents. A 3 requires basic prefill assist on core details.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Document / file uploads

Level of document collection required

Score

4 / 5

Why this score — And not more

An ID upload was required — simple and functional through the phone connection. A 5 requires no uploads at all.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Account connections

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

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

The funding connection was available, functional, and never a blocker to completing onboarding.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Repeated actions

Number of times a user completes redundant work

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Personal info — address, phone, SSN — was filled at least twice for the applicant applying as sole owner. A 5 reuses everything automatically.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Sensitivity of information required

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

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Asks are reasonable but never explained — no rationale for why information is collected or how it will be used. A 4 stages asks with clear rationale.

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, end to end.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of follow-up actions required

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

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

Zero follow-up tasks — a fully contained application.

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

Cross-device connection was seamless.

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	14 total screens across the main site and phone verification — past the 5+ screen floor.
Total number of fields Total fields / data points supplied	1 / 5	39 fields overall — the heaviest in the cohort, well past the ≥25 floor.
Manual data entry Information the user must type in manually, excluding uploads and account connections	2 / 5	The vast majority was typed manually; some data was helpfully pulled from uploaded documents. A 3 requires basic prefill assist on core details.
Document / file uploads Level of document collection required	4 / 5	An ID upload was required — simple and functional through the phone connection. A 5 requires no uploads at all.
Account connections Level of account connections required or optional, and how they improve the experience	5 / 5 · ceiling	The funding connection was available, functional, and never a blocker to completing onboarding.
Repeated actions Number of times a user completes redundant work	3 / 5	Personal info — address, phone, SSN — was filled at least twice for the applicant applying as sole owner. A 5 reuses everything automatically.
Sensitivity of information required How much trust is required of the user, and whether it is merited	3 / 5	Asks are reasonable but never explained — no rationale for why information is collected or how it will be used. A 4 stages asks with clear rationale.
User self-sufficiency Can the user complete the application on their own	5 / 5 · ceiling	Fully self-sufficient, end to end.
Total number of follow-up actions required All tasks completed within the same application flow — zero follow-ups.	5 / 5 · ceiling	Zero follow-up tasks — a fully contained application.
Error recovery & resilience The text with the application link made resuming very quick and easy.	5 / 5 · ceiling	Cross-device connection was seamless.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time from first screen to completion screen

Stopwatch “start” → “complete”

Score

4 / 5

Why this score — And not more

9 minutes to complete the application, 13:11 including account funding. A 5 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

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

No follow-up requests required.

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	9 minutes to complete the application, 13:11 including account funding. A 5 is ≤7 minutes.
Time to complete follow-up requests Time it takes the user to complete assigned follow-up tasks	5 / 5 · ceiling	No follow-up requests required.

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

Near-instant decision — the account was immediately active and able to be funded.

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.

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	Near-instant decision — the account was immediately active and able to be funded.
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.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Clarity of approval

Is a “why” stated for the outcome

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

A heads-up on what would be asked — business ownership and banking information — though vaguer than comparable applications in the cohort.

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

Disclosures provided, but densely communicated. A 4 provides ongoing plain-language visibility tied to user actions.

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

Limited controls over how much data is shared long term. A 4 requires granular, revocable controls.

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	5 / 5 · ceiling	A heads-up on what would be asked — business ownership and banking information — though vaguer than comparable applications in the cohort.
Ongoing data usage understanding Do I know how my data is used on an ongoing basis	3 / 5	Disclosures provided, but densely communicated. A 4 provides ongoing plain-language visibility tied to user actions.
Data privacy controls Can I control permissions over who sees what	3 / 5	Limited controls over how much data is shared long term. A 4 requires granular, revocable controls.

Opportunity

Highlights

Wins, losses, and what the network would fix.

Category: User effort
Wins: A functional funding connection with a clear payoff, zero follow-ups, and seamless cross-device recovery.
Losses: 39 fields — mostly manual — with personal details like address, phone, and SSN re-entered at least twice.
Opportunities: Network reuse would eliminate the duplicate owner-detail entry and pre-fill the business registry data outright.

Category: Application time
Wins: A 9-minute application, with funding done by 13:11.
Losses: Manual entry is what stands between Relay and the 7-minute ceiling.
Opportunities: Pre-fill would carry completion under 7 minutes.

Category: Decision speed
Wins: Instant decision, immediately fundable — the ceiling.
Losses: None — both sub-metrics at the ceiling.
Opportunities: Already best-in-class — the network preserves this while removing effort.

Category: Outcome transparency
Wins: A clear pre-application heads-up on what's coming.
Losses: No rationale for sensitive asks, dense disclosures, and limited long-term controls.
Opportunities: Plain-language rationale at each ask, plus granular, revocable permissions.

Opportunity highlights by category: wins, losses, and what the network would fix.
Category	Wins	Losses	Opportunities
User effort	A functional funding connection with a clear payoff, zero follow-ups, and seamless cross-device recovery.	39 fields — mostly manual — with personal details like address, phone, and SSN re-entered at least twice.	Network reuse would eliminate the duplicate owner-detail entry and pre-fill the business registry data outright.
Application time	A 9-minute application, with funding done by 13:11.	Manual entry is what stands between Relay and the 7-minute ceiling.	Pre-fill would carry completion under 7 minutes.
Decision speed	Instant decision, immediately fundable — the ceiling.	None — both sub-metrics at the ceiling.	Already best-in-class — the network preserves this while removing effort.
Outcome transparency	A clear pre-application heads-up on what's coming.	No rationale for sensitive asks, dense disclosures, and limited long-term controls.	Plain-language rationale at each ask, plus granular, revocable permissions.

Relay's Conversion Scorecard

Why SOLO Scores

Where Relay Ranked

What’s behind the score.

Methodology

Opportunity

Highlights

Replace repetitive workflows with reusable network memory.

Replace repetitive workflows with reusable network memory.