RESEARCH · CONSUMER BANKING

SoFi's conversion scorecard

SoFi scored an 81/100 for customer conversion on its checking & savings 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 SoFi falls in the rankings

See how SoFi's onboarding experience ranks within the co-hort of consumer deposit providers reviewed by SOLO.

View on Youtube ↗

Reviewed 09.02.26

What’s behind the score.

SoFi runs a clean, contained application: 15 fields, no documents, an instant decision at 4:38, and a functional direct-deposit connector — the only one in this category to earn the ceiling. What cost it points was a small funding glitch that forced the deposit to be repeated and stretched first-field-to-funded to 8:40, and Plaid's all-or-nothing sharing: connecting one checking account exposed every account, with revocation controlled by the bank rather than SoFi.

15
data fields across 10 screens - no documents required
User Effort
8:40
from first field to funded account - 4:38 to confirmation
Application time
Instant
decision - immediately able to start using features
Decision speed
4/5
clarity of approval rationale given
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

Nine application screens plus the third-party funding integration — 10 total, past the 5+ screen floor. A 5 is a single screen.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Total number of fields

Total fields / data points supplied

Score

2 / 5

Why this score — And not more

15 fields total — the 12–15 band. 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

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Nothing pre-filled outside of a light address assist, but minimal entry was needed. A 4 requires most data pulled automatically.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Document / file uploads

Level of document collection required

Score

5 / 5

Why this score — And not more

No documents needed — initial terms flagged a biometrics capture, but that step was never required.

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 direct-deposit connector was functional, despite interface lag that forced the deposit to be refreshed — the only ceiling score for connections in this category.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Repeated actions

Number of times a user completes redundant work

Score

3 / 5

Why this score — And not more

A minor UI bug forced the direct deposit to be repeated; the user could assume the need to repeat with minimal confusion. A 5 means nothing is ever done twice.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Sensitivity of information required

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

Score

5 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Clear disclaimers and reasons for requesting sensitive PII 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

Additional tasks or touchpoints required after initial form completion

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

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

Sub-metric · What's measured

Error recovery & resilience

Ability to recover from mistakes, restart drop-offs, or resume partial completion

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

The only multi-device action was MFA; no cross-device recovery was ever needed.

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	Nine application screens plus the third-party funding integration — 10 total, past the 5+ screen floor. A 5 is a single screen.
Total number of fields Total fields / data points supplied	2 / 5	15 fields total — the 12–15 band. Best-in-class is 1–4.
Manual data entry Information the user must type in manually, excluding uploads and account connections	3 / 5	Nothing pre-filled outside of a light address assist, but minimal entry was needed. A 4 requires most data pulled automatically.
Document / file uploads Level of document collection required	5 / 5	No documents needed — initial terms flagged a biometrics capture, but that step was never required.
Account connections Level of account connections required or optional, and how they improve the experience	5 / 5 · ceiling	The direct-deposit connector was functional, despite interface lag that forced the deposit to be refreshed — the only ceiling score for connections in this category.
Repeated actions Number of times a user completes redundant work	3 / 5	A minor UI bug forced the direct deposit to be repeated; the user could assume the need to repeat with minimal confusion. A 5 means nothing is ever done twice.
Sensitivity of information required How much trust is required of the user, and whether it is merited	5 / 5	Clear disclaimers and reasons for requesting sensitive PII 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 Additional tasks or touchpoints required after initial form completion	5 / 5 · ceiling	All tasks completed within the same application flow — zero follow-ups.
Error recovery & resilience Ability to recover from mistakes, restart drop-offs, or resume partial completion	5 / 5 · ceiling	The only multi-device action was MFA; no cross-device recovery was ever needed.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time from first screen to completion screen

Stopwatch “start” → “complete”

Score

2 / 5

Why this score — And not more

4:38 from first field to account confirmed — but a small glitch in adding and funding the account stretched first-field-to-funded to 8:40, the 7:31–9:59 band. A 5 is ≤4 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

The deposit was made within the same application flow — no follow-up task required to fund the account.

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”	2 / 5	4:38 from first field to account confirmed — but a small glitch in adding and funding the account stretched first-field-to-funded to 8:40, the 7:31–9:59 band. A 5 is ≤4 minutes.
Time to complete follow-up requests Time it takes the user to complete assigned follow-up tasks	5 / 5 · ceiling	The deposit was made within the same application flow — no follow-up task required to fund the account.

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

Immediately able to start using features — an instant decision.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Time between communications

Timely communications after completion; no follow-ups were necessary, so none were required.

Score

5 / 5 · ceiling

Why this score — And not more

Status updates were automatic with prompts on application status — proactive, real-time communication, the ceiling. Already best-in-class.

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	Immediately able to start using features — an instant decision.
Time between communications Timely communications after completion; no follow-ups were necessary, so none were required.	5 / 5 · ceiling	Status updates were automatic with prompts on application status — proactive, real-time communication, the ceiling. Already best-in-class.

Sub-metric · What's measured

Clarity of approval

Is a “why” stated for the outcome

Score

4 / 5

Why this score — And not more

Disclaimers throughout detail why each piece of sensitive information is requested — but there is no language on what is or isn't used for eligibility. A 5 explains the specific drivers of the outcome.

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

The terms give a high-level overview of ongoing data usage, but not the specifics of what information is used and how each part of the record is handled long term. A 4 provides ongoing visibility.

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

Connecting a bank account via Plaid shared ALL account information with no way to limit to one checking account — and revoking that sharing runs through the bank provider, not SoFi. 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	4 / 5	Disclaimers throughout detail why each piece of sensitive information is requested — but there is no language on what is or isn't used for eligibility. A 5 explains the specific drivers of the outcome.
Ongoing data usage understanding Do I know how my data is used on an ongoing basis	3 / 5	The terms give a high-level overview of ongoing data usage, but not the specifics of what information is used and how each part of the record is handled long term. A 4 provides ongoing visibility.
Data privacy controls Can I control permissions over who sees what	3 / 5	Connecting a bank account via Plaid shared ALL account information with no way to limit to one checking account — and revoking that sharing runs through the bank provider, not SoFi. A 4 requires granular, revocable controls.

Opportunity

Highlights

Wins, losses, and what the network would fix.

Category: User effort
Wins: No documents and no biometrics despite terms flagging them; the only functional direct-deposit connector in the category, with a clear payoff; sensitive asks explained; fully self-sufficient with zero follow-ups.
Losses: 15 fields across 10 screens with nothing pre-filled beyond a light address assist, and a UI bug forced the direct deposit to be repeated.
Opportunities: Network pre-fill of identity, address, employment, and income would turn 9 of 16 fields into confirm-and-submit — collapsing the 10-screen flow.

Category: Application time
Wins: Funding completed in-flow with no follow-up tasks on the applicant's side.
Losses: A funding glitch stretched a 4:38 confirmation into 8:40 first-field-to-funded.
Opportunities: Pre-filled identity data would bring the full journey under the 4-minute ceiling, even with the integration lag.

Category: Decision speed
Wins: Instant decision — features usable immediately — with timely communications.
Losses: —
Opportunities: —

Category: Outcome transparency
Wins: Clear rationale given for every sensitive ask.
Losses: Plaid's connection shared ALL accounts with no way to limit scope, and revocation lives with the bank rather than SoFi.
Opportunities: Granular, revocable sharing scoped to a single account — plus a plain-language data-use view — would lift privacy controls to best-in-class.

Opportunity highlights by category: wins, losses, and what the network would fix.
Category	Wins	Losses	Opportunities
User effort	No documents and no biometrics despite terms flagging them; the only functional direct-deposit connector in the category, with a clear payoff; sensitive asks explained; fully self-sufficient with zero follow-ups.	15 fields across 10 screens with nothing pre-filled beyond a light address assist, and a UI bug forced the direct deposit to be repeated.	Network pre-fill of identity, address, employment, and income would turn 9 of 16 fields into confirm-and-submit — collapsing the 10-screen flow.
Application time	Funding completed in-flow with no follow-up tasks on the applicant's side.	A funding glitch stretched a 4:38 confirmation into 8:40 first-field-to-funded.	Pre-filled identity data would bring the full journey under the 4-minute ceiling, even with the integration lag.
Decision speed	Instant decision — features usable immediately — with timely communications.	—	—
Outcome transparency	Clear rationale given for every sensitive ask.	Plaid's connection shared ALL accounts with no way to limit scope, and revocation lives with the bank rather than SoFi.	Granular, revocable sharing scoped to a single account — plus a plain-language data-use view — would lift privacy controls to best-in-class.

SoFi's conversion scorecard

Why SOLO Scores

Where SoFi falls in the rankings

What’s behind the score.

Methodology

Opportunity

Highlights

Request your scorecard review

Request your scorecard review