We Tested Four Fintech Apps. Here’s What We Found.
Over the last few months, we've tested mobile apps with blind users, worked with specialist iOS and Android accessibility associates, and more recently started using the Abra platform to run automated accessibility diagnostics. I was curious to see how the results compared. Could an automated tool identify the same patterns our human testers were finding? And would those patterns be similar across organisations operating in the same sector?
As a sector, Fintech felt like an interesting place to start. Many fintech organisations are built around the idea of widening access to financial services and making banking work for more people. I was interested to see whether that focus on inclusion would also be reflected in the accessibility of their mobile products.
Using the Abra software as a testing tool, I ran the same test across 4 apps for both iOS and Android. For the initial benchmarking, we focused on the primary entry screen (this is typically the login, registration or welcome screen). We chose this screen because it provides a consistent basis for comparison and represents the first interaction many users will have with a product.
The four products we tested were:
Algbra (ethical finance)
Monese (financial inclusion)
Pockit (financial inclusion)
Tembo (new entrant/disruptor)
The areas we tested and why it matters:
Colour & image contrast - Can people with low vision see the content?
Text sizing - Can people enlarge content and still use the app?
Focusable elements - Can screen reader users understand and navigate the interface?
Landscape orientation - Does the app adapt when users rotate their device?
Touch target size - Can users accurately tap important controls?
The results were interesting. What we're really looking at here is the front door to a business. For many customers, the login or welcome screen is their first interaction with a brand. If that first experience creates barriers, users may never get the opportunity to benefit from the services that sit behind it.
The Results
Across several apps there were instances where interactive elements lacked meaningful names or roles. This could mean that someone using a screen reader, and listening to what is on the screen, might hear the word “button” without knowing what the button actually does. A sighted tester may not pick up on this, but it will have significant impact on the useability of the app for a non-sighted user.
The next recurring issue was that the apps didn’t fully support landscape orientation. This matters because different users hold their phones in different ways. They may have their devices mounted to a wheelchair, they may use a stand, or it might just be easier to use when rotated. Small changes to how the apps work, can have a big impact for the users.
Two of the apps showed problems with touch target size, so this could be on buttons, links, icons or checkboxes, anything where the user should be able to interact with them and activate them. Accessibility is rarely one big glaring problem. More often, it's lots of small moments of friction. On their own they might seem insignificant. Together they can make a service difficult, frustrating or even impossible for someone to use independently.
Beyond curiosity, I wanted to see if one company could out-perform the others, as I wondered whether a little healthy competition could be the driver to improving accessibility for users. But the results didn’t bring a clear winner. No app was perfect, and nor would I expect it to be perfect. Accessibility isn’t something you do once, it’s much more of a journey, a way of thinking and a steady approach to building inclusive products and services.
So how useful have these tests been?
Accessibility professionals are often quick to point out the limitations of automated testing, and rightly so. These tools don't find everything. But as someone who wants to see accessibility improve across more organisations, I think it's important to recognise the value they bring.
Automated tools are excellent at identifying certain types of issue quickly and consistently. Missing button labels, poor colour contrast, missing accessibility roles, touch targets that are too small and problems with landscape orientation can all be surfaced in minutes.
What they can't tell you is whether a blind customer can successfully open an account, whether the navigation makes sense when using VoiceOver or TalkBack, whether an error message is helpful or whether the overall experience feels intuitive.
That's where people come in. Automated testing helps identify issues. Human testing helps us understand the impact.
The most interesting thing wasn't which app performed best. It was how similar many of the findings were.
Whether the organisation focused on ethical finance, financial inclusion or challenging traditional banking models, many of the same accessibility barriers appeared repeatedly. That suggests accessibility isn't a problem unique to one company. It's something that many organisations across the sector are still working through.
For me, that's where benchmarking becomes valuable. Understanding where you stand today provides a starting point. Understanding how that compares with others in your sector provides context. It moves accessibility beyond a compliance discussion and turns it into a conversation about customer experience, engagement and continuous improvement.
No organisation gets accessibility perfect. Nor should that be the expectation. The goal is to keep improving, removing barriers and making services easier for people to use.
If you’d like to know more about Abra’s testing tool, follow the link to their website: https://abra.ai/
In the next edition of Beyond the Checklist, I’ll share more insights around mobile accessibility and patterns that are emerging.
Find out more
If you'd like to understand how accessible and usable your mobile application really is, get in touch.
Complete our ‘Book a Discovery Call’ form and we'd be happy to have an initial conversation about your current app, your accessibility goals and where we can help.
Whether you need strategic guidance, executive buy-in, specialist accessibility talent or a complete review of your mobile experience, we're here to help you build products that work better for everyone.
Comments