RESEARCH · CONSUMER BANKING

Slash's Conversion Scorecard

Slash scored a 41.4 / 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 Slash Ranked

See where Slash landed in the review and rankings of the Conversion Scorecard for Business Banking Accounts.

View on Youtube ↗

What’s behind the score.

Slash runs the most diligent KYB and KYC process we have scored — no account connection is required, sensitive asks are explained, and cross-device handoff holds. But 56 fields across 15 screens, eight document uploads including a personal utility bill and a state proof of good standing the applicant had to buy, three separate addresses, and a closing “more information needed” email with no stated requirement left most of the points on the table.

total fields, including 8 document uploads
User Effort
total application time, documents already prepared
Application time
quoted — then a request for more, not a decision
Decision speed
reasons given for what was still missing
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

15 screens across two devices, well past the ≥5-screen floor: eligibility gating, company location, business information, additional business detail, principal KYC across four screens, a mobile document capture and liveness check, company documents, and a final round of additional questions. The count includes the separate government-registry account the applicant had to create and pay for to obtain a proof of good standing.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of fields

Total fields / data points supplied

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

56 data points — more than twice the ≥25 floor band, including three free-text paragraph answers. Best-in-class is ≤7 fields, which requires sourcing nearly 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

2 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Only email, phone and country carried across screens; dropdowns and checkboxes helped on spend and usage questions, but structured entity data — date of incorporation, EIN, addresses — had to be copied by hand out of source documents. A 3 requires real validation and prefill on core details.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Document / file uploads

Level of document collection required

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Eight documents, most of them not on hand: proof of business address, personal proof of residential address, ID capture, articles of incorporation, proof of operating activity, two bank statements, an EIN letter, and a proof of good standing the applicant had to register and pay a state portal to obtain. A 3 is 1–2 common documents; a 5 is none.

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

No account connections were required or attempted, so nothing was broken or blocking — the best-in-class case. Already at the ceiling.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Repeated actions

Number of times a user completes redundant work

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Nothing supplied as a document was read back into the form — every field was re-keyed by hand. Three separate addresses were collected, and the closing questions re-asked what the business does and where its funds come from, both already answered earlier in the flow.

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

SSN, date of birth and nationality were staged appropriately and prefaced with a clear reason, and the ID requirement was flagged before the screen. Other asks — a personal utility bill and a home address on a business account — arrived with no rationale. A 4–5 requires that explanation everywhere, with visible safeguards.

Sub-metric · What's measured

User self-sufficiency

Can the user complete the application on their own

Score

2 / 5

Why this score — And not more

The applicant could not finish alone: the founder was pulled off calls for a utility bill, the sales team for contracts, and a state registry for a certificate. Submission then triggered a manual review with an opaque follow-up. A 4–5 requires completion with no human help.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of follow-up actions required

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

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Two follow-up tasks were required after submission, and both were opaque — the request stated that more information was needed without saying what. A 5 means submission 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

4 / 5

Why this score — And not more

The desktop-to-mobile handoff for document capture and the liveness check was seamless and the session survived a 49-minute pause — but the handoff itself was burdensome, and the review screen had to be worked twice. A 5 requires clean recovery without the extra passes.

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	15 screens across two devices, well past the ≥5-screen floor: eligibility gating, company location, business information, additional business detail, principal KYC across four screens, a mobile document capture and liveness check, company documents, and a final round of additional questions. The count includes the separate government-registry account the applicant had to create and pay for to obtain a proof of good standing.
Total number of fields Total fields / data points supplied	1 / 5	56 data points — more than twice the ≥25 floor band, including three free-text paragraph answers. Best-in-class is ≤7 fields, which requires sourcing nearly 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	2 / 5	Only email, phone and country carried across screens; dropdowns and checkboxes helped on spend and usage questions, but structured entity data — date of incorporation, EIN, addresses — had to be copied by hand out of source documents. A 3 requires real validation and prefill on core details.
Document / file uploads Level of document collection required	1 / 5	Eight documents, most of them not on hand: proof of business address, personal proof of residential address, ID capture, articles of incorporation, proof of operating activity, two bank statements, an EIN letter, and a proof of good standing the applicant had to register and pay a state portal to obtain. A 3 is 1–2 common documents; a 5 is none.
Account connections Level of account connections required or optional, and how they improve the experience	5 / 5 · ceiling	No account connections were required or attempted, so nothing was broken or blocking — the best-in-class case. Already at the ceiling.
Repeated actions Number of times a user completes redundant work	1 / 5	Nothing supplied as a document was read back into the form — every field was re-keyed by hand. Three separate addresses were collected, and the closing questions re-asked what the business does and where its funds come from, both already answered earlier in the flow.
Sensitivity of information required How much trust is required of the user, and whether it is merited	3 / 5	SSN, date of birth and nationality were staged appropriately and prefaced with a clear reason, and the ID requirement was flagged before the screen. Other asks — a personal utility bill and a home address on a business account — arrived with no rationale. A 4–5 requires that explanation everywhere, with visible safeguards.
User self-sufficiency Can the user complete the application on their own	2 / 5	The applicant could not finish alone: the founder was pulled off calls for a utility bill, the sales team for contracts, and a state registry for a certificate. Submission then triggered a manual review with an opaque follow-up. A 4–5 requires completion with no human help.
Total number of follow-up actions required All tasks completed within the same application flow — zero follow-ups.	3 / 5	Two follow-up tasks were required after submission, and both were opaque — the request stated that more information was needed without saying what. A 5 means submission is complete and decisionable on its own.
Error recovery & resilience The text with the application link made resuming very quick and easy.	4 / 5	The desktop-to-mobile handoff for document capture and the liveness check was seamless and the session survived a 49-minute pause — but the handoff itself was burdensome, and the review screen had to be worked twice. A 5 requires clean recovery without the extra passes.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time from first screen to completion screen

Stopwatch “start” → “complete”

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

53:44 from first screen to submission with every document already prepared and open, including the second owner login — more than double the >25 min floor. A large share of it was a single utility bill that was on autopay and never issued as a statement.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time to complete follow-up requests

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

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

The follow-up request was too vague to act on and appeared neither in the dashboard nor in an actionable email, so it was never fully resolved — the floor band. A 4–5 requires requests that can be closed out in under a day, or none at all.

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	53:44 from first screen to submission with every document already prepared and open, including the second owner login — more than double the >25 min floor. A large share of it was a single utility bill that was on autopay and never issued as a statement.
Time to complete follow-up requests Time it takes the user to complete assigned follow-up tasks	1 / 5	The follow-up request was too vague to act on and appeared neither in the dashboard nor in an actionable email, so it was never fully resolved — the floor band. A 4–5 requires requests that can be closed out in under a day, or none at all.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time to final decision, from application start

Stopwatch “start” → account open / decision made

Score

1 / 5

Why this score — And not more

1–2 business days was quoted as standard, and what arrived was not a decision but a request for more information — leaving the application open-ended. Peer neo-banks in this set quote 24 hours and typically answer within five. A 5 is an instant or near-instant decision.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time between communications

Responsiveness for additional tasks needed to move the application forward

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Updates landed inside 24 hours, but said little — timely without being clear. A 4–5 requires status tracking and proactive 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	1 / 5	1–2 business days was quoted as standard, and what arrived was not a decision but a request for more information — leaving the application open-ended. Peer neo-banks in this set quote 24 hours and typically answer within five. A 5 is an instant or near-instant decision.
Time between communications Responsiveness for additional tasks needed to move the application forward	3 / 5	Updates landed inside 24 hours, but said little — timely without being clear. A 4–5 requires status tracking and proactive 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

Slash was unusually clear about what it wanted while collecting — prompts on the business description, an explanation before each sensitive ask — but the outcome itself carried no reason: no statement of what was missing, and no path to close it out. A 4–5 requires specific reason categories and concrete next steps.

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 were provided and consented to explicitly — twice — but densely, with a second consent pop-up after the agreements. A 4–5 requires ongoing, plain-language visibility tied to what the customer actually did.

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

Some controls were outlined in the flow and in the disclosures, but what happens to the data beyond in-product “personalization” is not evident. A 4–5 requires granular, revocable permissions by source and purpose, with a visible 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	3 / 5	Slash was unusually clear about what it wanted while collecting — prompts on the business description, an explanation before each sensitive ask — but the outcome itself carried no reason: no statement of what was missing, and no path to close it out. A 4–5 requires specific reason categories and concrete next steps.
Ongoing data usage understanding Do I know how my data is used on an ongoing basis	3 / 5	Disclosures were provided and consented to explicitly — twice — but densely, with a second consent pop-up after the agreements. A 4–5 requires ongoing, plain-language visibility tied to what the customer actually did.
Data privacy controls Can I control permissions over who sees what	3 / 5	Some controls were outlined in the flow and in the disclosures, but what happens to the data beyond in-product “personalization” is not evident. A 4–5 requires granular, revocable permissions by source and purpose, with a visible permission history.

Opportunity

Highlights

Wins, losses, and what the network would fix.

Category: User effort
Wins: No account connection was required, sensitive identity asks were explained before they appeared, and the desktop-to-mobile handoff for ID capture and liveness held without dropping the session. The diligence itself is a genuine asset: Slash holds some of the richest KYC and KYB data of any fintech in this series.
Losses: 56 fields across 15 screens and eight documents (all scored 1), nothing read back out of the documents supplied, three separate addresses, and a proof of good standing the applicant had to register and pay for. Finishing required the founder, the sales team and a state registry.
Opportunities: A reusable KYB certificate clears the entity, address, formation and operating-activity evidence in one permission; a KYC certificate clears the principal and any additional beneficial owners. The customer supplies a few key fields and consents — the rest is already verified and fully removed from their application if it was already completed to Slash's standards by someone in the network.

Category: Application time
Wins: Checkbox and dropdown inputs on spend, usage and payment methods kept the financial-profile screens moving.
Losses: 53:44 start to submission with documents already prepared, much of it stalled on one utility bill — and a follow-up request too vague to ever close.
Opportunities: Prefilled entity and identity data removes both the typing and the document hunt — taking the application from 53+ minutes to between 2 and 3 minutes in a single sitting.

Category: Decision speed
Wins: Communications arrived inside 24 hours against a stated 1–2 business day standard.
Losses: No decision was reached — the flow ended in a request for more information, with no visible status and no way to tell how close the application was.
Opportunities: Evidence that already meets Slash's policy arrives pre-verified, so review is a check against policy rather than a manual document assessment.

Category: Outcome transparency
Wins: Slash's strongest category. Prompts told the applicant what a good answer looked like, legal and physical addresses were distinguished with commentary, and every sensitive ask came with a reason — the applicant trusted that data was collected for a purpose.
Losses: The clarity stopped at the end: the closing questions repeated earlier ones with no prompt or explanation, disclosures were dense and double-consented, and the follow-up email named no requirement.
Opportunities: Carrying the same “here's why we're asking” discipline into the outcome — stated reasons, a visible status, and a plain-language view of ongoing data use with revocable controls — makes this category best-in-class.

Opportunity highlights by category: wins, losses, and what the network would fix.
Category	Wins	Losses	Opportunities
User effort	No account connection was required, sensitive identity asks were explained before they appeared, and the desktop-to-mobile handoff for ID capture and liveness held without dropping the session. The diligence itself is a genuine asset: Slash holds some of the richest KYC and KYB data of any fintech in this series.	56 fields across 15 screens and eight documents (all scored 1), nothing read back out of the documents supplied, three separate addresses, and a proof of good standing the applicant had to register and pay for. Finishing required the founder, the sales team and a state registry.	A reusable KYB certificate clears the entity, address, formation and operating-activity evidence in one permission; a KYC certificate clears the principal and any additional beneficial owners. The customer supplies a few key fields and consents — the rest is already verified and fully removed from their application if it was already completed to Slash's standards by someone in the network.
Application time	Checkbox and dropdown inputs on spend, usage and payment methods kept the financial-profile screens moving.	53:44 start to submission with documents already prepared, much of it stalled on one utility bill — and a follow-up request too vague to ever close.	Prefilled entity and identity data removes both the typing and the document hunt — taking the application from 53+ minutes to between 2 and 3 minutes in a single sitting.
Decision speed	Communications arrived inside 24 hours against a stated 1–2 business day standard.	No decision was reached — the flow ended in a request for more information, with no visible status and no way to tell how close the application was.	Evidence that already meets Slash's policy arrives pre-verified, so review is a check against policy rather than a manual document assessment.
Outcome transparency	Slash's strongest category. Prompts told the applicant what a good answer looked like, legal and physical addresses were distinguished with commentary, and every sensitive ask came with a reason — the applicant trusted that data was collected for a purpose.	The clarity stopped at the end: the closing questions repeated earlier ones with no prompt or explanation, disclosures were dense and double-consented, and the follow-up email named no requirement.	Carrying the same “here's why we're asking” discipline into the outcome — stated reasons, a visible status, and a plain-language view of ongoing data use with revocable controls — makes this category best-in-class.

Slash's Conversion Scorecard

Why SOLO Scores

Where Slash Ranked

What’s behind the score.

Methodology

Opportunity

Highlights

Replace repetitive workflows with reusable network memory.

Replace repetitive workflows with reusable network memory.