UserTesting findings — Financial planning dashboard

Which design won?

11 / 11

Preferred the Detailed variant (100%)

Headline: Every participant’s stated preference maps to the Detailed layout (named goals on-card + richer visuals) when coded by what they described—not by UserTesting’s A/B label alone.

Variant	What it is	Result (n=11)
Winner: Detailed	Named goals on the card (e.g. retirement, wedding, long-term care), richer layout (Option1 / Option3 mocks); 79% shown with a donut chart in Option1	11 / 11 preferred (100%)
Simple	Aggregate “7 active goals” without listing them on-card; lighter layout (Option2)	0 / 11

How we counted: UserTesting labels Version A / B swap with counterbalancing. Preferences here are coded by what people described (visible goals vs. count-only, visuals, density)—not by letter alone.

One-line takeaway: Users consistently want goal names and amounts on the summary view, plus stronger visualization for probability—not only a headline 79% and a goal count.

The designs we tested

Each mock shows the web card (left) and mobile frame (right). Select an image to open it full size.

Simple variant (Option2): net worth with assets and liabilities bar, goals shown only as the number 7 with the text 'Active goals in your primary financial plan', and probability of success shown as 79% text. Web card and mobile frame. — Simple Option2 · **0 / 11 preferred**

Goals shown as a count only (**“7 active goals”**); **79%** as plain text with no chart.

Detailed variant (Option1): net worth with assets and liabilities bar, named goals (Retire 2059, Jane's Wedding 2035, John's Long Term Care 2063) with amounts, and probability of success shown as a 79% donut chart. Web card and mobile frame. — Detailed Option1

**Named goals** with amounts and a **donut chart** for 79%. Known mock error: the desktop footnote under 79% repeats the **net-worth** wording.

Detailed variant (Option3): net worth with assets and liabilities bar, named goals (Retire 2059, Jane's Wedding 2035, John's Long Term Care 2063) with amounts, and probability of success shown as 79% text with a likelihood description. Web card and mobile frame. — Detailed Option3

Same **named goals** as Option1; **79%** as text with the correct **“likelihood of your plan being successful”** footnote.

Detailed (Option1 / Option3 combined): 11 / 11 preferred.

What worked — verbatims

Why the Detailed direction resonated

“[Version] A provided me with context to the 79% that I thought was really valuable, the … wedding, retirement and all that.” User 01
“This I like so much better … when I'm supposed to retire, how much annually … daughter … married in 2035 and long-term care.” User 02
“Breaks down the goals … instead of just like seven and then I have to go in and see what they are.” User 03
“I like version A … same amount of real estate and has got more information.” User 05
“I kind of like the chart … that piece that's still missing.” User 06 (vs. number alone)
“Different visualizations of my progress and my goal … visual presentation better.” User 07
“Version A was easier to understand … additional details about the breakdown of the goals.” User 08
“Right amount of information … grasp exactly what we're looking at.” User 09 (on A)
“Go with version A because I like seeing my goals.” User 10
“Version A is definitely my preference … more details regarding my goals … better visual.” User 11

Recurring positives (no quote): Net worth and green/red assets vs. liabilities read quickly; mobile generally felt easy and consistent with desktop; high-level dashboard framing is welcome if drill-down exists.

What struggled — verbatims

Friction with Simple, copy, and the 79% metric

Simple / “goals as a count only”

“In version B I think the goals are missing.” User 03
“Goal seven. What are they? … click through more stuff.” User 05
“Can't see any [goals] in version B.” User 10
“Not … showing me the goals, just … how many I have … don't see that graph visual for the 79%.” User 11
“Version B … very bland … more from that high level view … if I don't have time to drill down.” User 11

Understanding / trust of 79%

“I lack some context to what the 79% really represents.” User 01
“On the website … assets minus liabilities … on the mobile … likelihood … subtle, yet meaningful.” User 01
“I'm about 79% of the way there.” User 03 (treats probability like progress)
“Probability of success … but then it says … assets minus liabilities … not the plan … kind of confused.” User 03
“Not quite sure how it's contributing to my goals … does this 79% take into account my goals?” User 11

Density / scannability (Simple feels too thin)

“Seven … 79% … kind of a little light … more difficult … what exactly they are.” User 09
“B … a bit light … click further … what … goals are.” User 09

Brand / IA surprises

“Broker check … not what I thought broker check could do.” User 02
“Curious why … broker check … where you look up … brokers and investment advisors.” User 05

CTA / next steps

“Don't know what money guide is … only thing that I can click on.” User 10

UX designer callouts (actionable)

Ship the Detailed pattern for the summary card

List named goals (and key amounts / timing) on the hero view. The 7-only treatment consistently reads as incomplete, bland, or forcing extra clicks without payoff.
Make “probability of success” self-explanatory

Multiple people conflated 79% with progress, “percent of the way there,” or average across goals. Pair the number with short scope copy (what horizon, what “success” means) and/or education / tooltip / “How this is calculated.”
Align copy across web and mobile for the same metric

Mismatched footnotes under 79% undermined trust (User 01, User 03). Fix Option1-style desktop errors so probability never reuses net-worth language.
Keep or strengthen the chart

Users called out pie/donut (or similar) as helping them see the “missing” slice and compare variants (Users 06, 10, 11). If you simplify visuals, test that you don’t lose this clarity.
Add a “goal health” line—even on Detailed

Even when goals are listed, people still ask: on track? behind by X? what changed last year? levers to improve (Users 11, 04, others). Consider a compact status per goal or a single plan health line tied to 79%.
Progressive disclosure, not data hiding

Users want a clean landing (User 09) and enough goal context to understand the headline without drilling. Click targets for assets, liabilities, and each goal should be obvious; Money Guide needs a clear value prop if it’s the main path.
Surface composition without clutter

Requests for asset/liability listings or breakdown at a glance (Users 01, 08, 09)—balance with expand / rows / secondary panel so the card stays scannable.
BrokerCheck (mobile)

If the logo stays, set context (why it’s here) or expect confusion vs. FINRA BrokerCheck expectations (Users 02, 05).
Emotional comfort vs. honest probability

Some want 90s or 100% to “feel confident” (User 10). Design copy and coaching that doesn’t overpromise while still explaining what improves the score.
Optional depth (power users)

Per-goal probability, investment performance over time, liquidity/penalties, retirement calculator—requested after summary (Users 04, 07, 09, 11). Good candidates for second screen or linked flows.

Methods note

Platform: UserTesting web, balanced comparison (which design appeared first varied).
Stimuli: Web card + mobile frame per variant; see The designs we tested (source PNGs in project assets/).
This page: Preference by design substance; full session notes in research-log.md (parent folder).