Improving the lending journey flow

In the earlier experience, amount entry was treated as a basic input step. Users were expected to enter a number without clear visibility into their eligibility, limits, or what a “right” amount looks like.

This led to guesswork, repeated edits, and low confidence before moving forward.

The updated experience reframes this step as a decision-making moment—introducing clear boundaries, flexible controls, and contextual cues that help users explore and finalize an amount with confidence.

Choosing an EMI plan is one of the most critical decisions in the journey. In the earlier experience, while details like charges and interest rates were available, they were surfaced later on the summary screen.

This meant users were expected to select an EMI plan without fully understanding the financial implications upfront, often leading to hesitation or back-and-forth navigation.

The updated experience brings more structure and guidance to this step, helping users make a decision with better clarity and confidence.

This is the point where users stop and try to understand the full picture, how much they’ll receive, what gets deducted, and what they’ll need to repay.

In the earlier experience, while all the information was technically present, it wasn’t structured in a way that made it easy to grasp. Users often couldn’t clearly tell how much money they would actually receive after deductions, as charges like processing fees were not highlighted strongly enough. Monthly EMI and repayment details also lacked emphasis, making it harder to quickly evaluate the commitment.

On top of this, the flow itself introduced friction. If a user wanted to change the amount or tenure after reviewing these details, they had to cancel the entire application and restart the journey. This broke the flow at a critical moment and often led to drop-offs.

The updated experience restructures this step to make information clearer, more visible, and easier to act on, while also allowing users to review and adjust their decisions without being forced to start over.

Setting up autopay is where intent often drops, because this is the moment users feel they are committing financially.

In the earlier experience, this step felt rigid and unclear. Users were asked to set up autopay without fully understanding why it was needed, how it worked, or what their alternatives were. The experience was limited to a few methods, lacked flexibility, and introduced friction by forcing users into a setup flow without enough context or reassurance.

Additionally, key information wasn’t structured effectively. Details like the linked bank account and minimum balance requirements were separated, even though the required balance varies by bank. This lack of proximity made it harder for users to quickly connect the information, adding to confusion and hesitation.

The final transaction states are critical, they determine whether users feel confident, anxious, or unsure about what just happened to their money.

In the earlier experience, while different states existed, they lacked clarity and depth. Failure and pending states were especially weak, users were informed that something went wrong or was in progress, but without any clear reason or guidance on what to do next. This often led to confusion, repeated retries, or support calls.

There was also inconsistency in how these states were presented, making it harder for users to quickly differentiate between success, failure, and pending scenarios.