What is Emma?
Emma is a UK-based all-in-one personal finance app with over 2 million users. It connects bank accounts via open banking to help users budget, save, invest, pay and build their credit — all within a single subscription-based platform. Plans range from a free Basic tier up to a £6.99/month Ultimate tier.
For this case study, I focused specifically on the Credit tab, the Save tab, and the free trial conversion screen — three screens that sit at the heart of Emma's revenue model and user growth strategy, and where the most significant UX friction exists for new and existing users.
This case study is directly relevant to my fintech industry focus. Emma occupies a growing market segment — financial wellness apps — where poor UX design has real financial consequences for users. By identifying design limitations in Emma, I am also mapping opportunities that inform my Major Project direction around transparent, accessible financial UX.
The Credit Discovery & Trial Conversion Flow
I selected the end-to-end journey a new user takes when they discover the Credit tab and are prompted to upgrade to a paid plan. This is one of Emma's most critical flows — it is where the product attempts to convert free users into paying subscribers — and it sits across three of the four screenshots provided.
The Save flow (screenshot 4) also forms part of this analysis. It shows the "Pots" sub-section with interest rate cards (Super Pot 3.34% AER, Easy Access Pot 3.20% AER, 45 Day Notice Pot 3.67% AER), a tab bar for Pots / Autosave / Cashback / Opportunities, and a prominent "Create a Pot for free" CTA.
Evidence: Screenshots from live Emma app
The four screens below were captured from a live Emma account in June 2026 and form the primary evidence base for this case study.
Save tab landing state. Shows Super Pot (3.34% AER), Easy Access Pot (3.20% AER), and a clipped third card. "Create a Pot for free" primary CTA at bottom.
All six credit products visible: Loans, Car finance, Home improvements, Debt consolidation, Credit cards, Mortgages — flat list, equal visual weight, no personalisation.
Rent Reporting card below the product list. Experian, Equifax and TransUnion logos visible. "Start reporting" CTA uses a pale lavender background — visually reads as inactive.
Trial conversion flow: Today / Day 5 / Day 7 timeline. £6.99/month (billed yearly at £83.99). No feature list. Binary choice: "Try for £0.00" or dismiss with ✕.
What I observed going wrong
By navigating the live app and analysing the four screenshots carefully, I identified the following problems independently — before mapping them to formal UX principles in section 04.
The Credit tab is a product catalogue, not a guidance tool
The Credit screen presents six financial products (Loans, Car finance, Home improvements, Debt consolidation, Credit cards, Mortgages) as a flat list with identical visual weight. There is no information about the user's current credit score, eligibility signal, or recommended starting point. A user with poor credit lands on a screen that offers them a mortgage with no context — this can cause anxiety and confusion, and doesn't reflect where they actually are in their financial journey.
High severityThe trial screen doesn't tell you what you're actually getting
The "How your free trial works" screen shows a timeline of three events (Today / Day 5 / Day 7) and a price, but never specifies which features are included in the trial. The header says "Get full access to the most popular tools" — but which tools? Emma has four plan tiers (Basic, Plus, Pro, Ultimate). The user has no way to evaluate whether the £6.99/month is worth it because they don't know what they're unlocking. The pricing also switches mid-screen between monthly (£6.99/month) and annual billing (£83.99/year) without clearly explaining these are two different commit lengths.
High severityRent Reporting is buried and undersold
In screenshot 3, Rent Reporting — one of Emma's most genuinely valuable credit-building features — appears below a list of six lender products the user must scroll past. The CTA button ("+ Start reporting") uses a pale lavender background that visually reads as disabled or inactive. For a feature that could meaningfully improve a user's credit score, this placement and visual treatment significantly reduces discoverability.
Medium severityThe Save tab's third pot card is cut off
In the Pots screen (screenshot 4), the horizontal card carousel shows "Super Pot", "Easy Access Pot", and a third card labelled "45 Day Notice P—" that is visually clipped by the screen edge. The user can see there is a third option but cannot read the full name or the interest rate (3.67% AER — the highest of the three). This obscures the most competitive rate and may lead users to create a lower-yield pot without knowing a better option exists.
Medium severityNo graceful exit from the trial screen
The trial paywall screen (screenshot 1) has only an ✕ dismiss button — there is no "Stay on free plan" or "Remind me later" option. This binary choice (commit to trial or leave) increases friction and abandonment. Users who are interested but not ready may exit entirely rather than exploring the app further.
Low severityDefining the problems formally
Each problem identified in section 03 can be precisely mapped to the UX principles from the course brief. This allows us to move from subjective observation to objective design critique.
| Problem | UX Principle Violated | Design Law | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit tab is a flat product list | Visibility | Jakob's Law | Users can't understand where they are in their credit journey. No score, no eligibility signal. Critical context is invisible. |
| Credit tab is a flat product list | Reduce Cognitive Load | Hick's Law | Six undifferentiated choices with equal visual weight force the user to make a complex financial decision without support. Hick's Law: more choices = more time and anxiety. |
| Trial screen missing feature list | Visibility Feedback | Nielsen Heuristic #1 | The system doesn't show what the user is committing to. There is no visibility of what "the most popular tools" actually are. |
| Trial pricing confusion | Consistency | Miller's Law | Showing two prices (£6.99/month and £83.99/year) simultaneously without clearly labelling them as different billing cycles adds unnecessary cognitive load. |
| Rent Reporting buried | Affordance Mapping | Fitts's Law | The pale CTA button does not afford clicking — it looks inactive. Fitts's Law: important targets should be large and visually prominent. |
| Third pot card clipped | Visibility User Control and Freedom | Gestalt (Closure) | The clipped card violates the Gestalt principle of closure — users see an incomplete object and cannot evaluate it, limiting their ability to make a fully informed choice. |
| No graceful exit on trial screen | User Control and Freedom | Nielsen Heuristic #3 | Users have no "emergency exit." The only non-commitment option is a dismissive ✕ which offers no middle path. |
| Trial screen missing feature list | Constraints | Error Prevention | Without a feature list, users cannot make an informed decision. They may sign up for a plan that doesn't include what they wanted — a preventable error. |
Three proposed improvements
The following solutions are grounded in the UX principles above and directly address the highest-severity problems. Each solution is scoped to be realistic within Emma's existing visual language.
Redesign the Credit tab as a personalised journey screen
Replace the flat 6-item product list with a two-part Credit screen. The top section shows the user's current credit position: a simple score indicator (Poor / Fair / Good / Excellent), one recommended next action (e.g. "Start Rent Reporting to build history"), and a progress indicator showing how many credit-building actions they've completed.
The product list (Loans, Mortgages etc.) moves to a collapsible "Browse products" section at the bottom — still accessible, but not competing with the building journey at the top. Rent Reporting gets promoted to the primary CTA with a filled, high-contrast purple button (matching the main CTA style).
6 equal-weight credit products, no context, Rent Reporting buried at bottom with pale CTA
Credit score summary at top → Rent Reporting as primary CTA → Credit products collapsed below
Principles satisfied
- Visibility: User immediately understands their credit position
- Reduce Cognitive Load (Hick's Law): One primary action instead of six
- Mapping: The screen now maps to the user's journey, not a product catalogue
- Affordance: Rent Reporting CTA is styled to look clearly actionable
Redesign the trial screen with a feature checklist
The trial screen should show exactly what the user gains access to during the 7-day trial. Replace the generic "Get full access to the most popular tools for free" line with a specific feature list: 3–5 bullet points using Emma's own feature names (e.g. ✓ Rent Reporting, ✓ Custom budgeting categories, ✓ Cashback offers, ✓ Net worth tracking).
The pricing section should separate the two billing options visually — monthly and annual — as distinct selectable options with a radio button or toggle. The current design shows them on a single line which implies one price with a confusing parenthetical. An "Explore free features first" secondary link below the CTA gives users a graceful exit that keeps them in the app rather than exiting entirely.
"Get full access to the most popular tools" — no detail. Confusing dual pricing on one line. Binary choice: trial or dismiss.
Named feature checklist (5 items). Clear monthly vs annual toggle. "Continue with free plan" secondary option below CTA.
Principles satisfied
- Visibility: User can see exactly what they're unlocking
- Constraints (Error Prevention): Users can't accidentally commit to a plan they don't understand
- User Control and Freedom: "Continue with free plan" provides a graceful exit
- Consistency: Pricing presented consistently — one billing cycle at a time
Fix the clipped pot card in the Save tab
The horizontal carousel of Pot options clips the third card (45 Day Notice Pot, 3.67% AER) at the screen edge. This hides the highest available interest rate from users who don't scroll. Two solutions are viable depending on the number of pot options:
Option A — Vertical stack (preferred): If there are consistently 3 pot types, replace the horizontal scroll with a vertical list of full-width cards. Each card shows the pot name, AER rate, and access type clearly. No scrolling required, nothing clipped.
Option B — Peek affordance: If the carousel must stay, reduce card width slightly so the third card peeks at a consistent 60px — making it visually clear there are more options (using the Gestalt law of continuation) and adding a subtle scroll indicator.
Third card (highest rate, 3.67% AER) is cut off. User may miss the best option and choose an inferior pot.
Vertical stack of full-width cards shows all three pots with their full name, rate, and access type at a glance.
Principles satisfied
- Visibility: All pot options fully visible without scrolling
- User Control and Freedom: User can compare all options before deciding
- Accessibility: Full card text is readable without gesture interaction
- Reduce Cognitive Load: Scanning a vertical list is cognitively easier than a horizontal scroll
Testing the proposed solutions
Work In Progress
What this means for fintech UX
Emma is a technically impressive product with a wide feature set, strong security credentials, and genuine utility. The problems identified in this case study are not failures of technology or intent — they are failures of information hierarchy and transparency at critical decision moments.
Complexity hides value
Emma's breadth (Save, Pay, Invest, Credit, Budget) is its strength and its UX weakness. When everything is visible at once, nothing is prioritised. Good fintech UX must progressively reveal complexity based on user readiness.
Financial UX has higher stakes
In most apps, a confused user simply leaves. In fintech, a confused user may accidentally apply for credit, miss a higher interest rate, or sign up for a subscription they don't understand. The cost of poor UX is not just abandonment — it's real financial harm.
Industry-wide pattern
The problems in Emma mirror issues in the broader fintech sector — from Loqbox's transparency failures to Monzo's complex card management. There is a recurring gap between what a product does and what users understand it to do. This gap is the Major Project opportunity.
Informing Major Project
This case study surfaces a clear design direction: a financial product that puts transparency and user orientation at its core — where users always know where they are, what they have, and what their next best action is. This is the design problem I want to solve.
How the proposed changes support the industry
The three design solutions proposed in this case study are not merely aesthetic improvements — they address systemic issues in how fintech apps communicate with financially vulnerable users. The FCA's Consumer Duty (2023) requires financial services to ensure products deliver "good outcomes" for customers. Surfaces that hide key information, bury important features, or present confusing pricing work against this duty.
By redesigning the Credit screen to be journey-led, the trial screen to be transparent, and the Pots screen to surface complete options, Emma would move closer to a UX model that genuinely empowers users — improving not just conversion rates, but user trust and long-term retention. These are the same principles that should underpin any new fintech product entering this market.
"Good design is not just about aesthetics. In financial services, it is about informed consent, user safety, and equitable access to financial tools. The smallest UX decision can be the difference between a user building their credit or being misled into debt." — Personal reflection