Nothing Standard about Std Bank - Part Two

In my ongoing series reviewing South Africa's top banking apps, I've been testing each one thoroughly, zeroing in on the transactional process. This time, after an eight-month battle just to open a business account, I finally got access to Standard Bank's mobile app.

The outcome? Some solid steps forward, a few avoidable stumbles, and lessons that apply to anyone designing digital products, in banking or elsewhere.

A Quick Thank You

Before we get into it, a big thanks to the Standard Bank team. Your help in sorting out my business account after my earlier feedback was genuinely impressive. It reflects a strong focus on customer service, and I hope that's the standard for everyone. That said, let's discuss some areas for improvement openly. Constructive feedback is how we all get better in this space.

The Issue with Dual Apps: Why a Unified Experience Wins Right away

One of the first things that struck me with Standard Bank is their split into two apps: one for personal and one for business. From my background evaluating fintech across different roles, this kind of division creates extra barriers from the start. I didn't even realize they had two apps—how was I supposed to?

Compare that to Nedbank, which handles everything in one app with a single login. Absa uses one app but still requires separate logins (and oddly disables biometrics even if you control both accounts). Absa, although better than two apps, still adds unnecessary hassle. For Standard Bank, combining two apps into one app could transform the onboarding process. In mobile UX, simplicity is key—a single, straightforward app cuts down on confusion and builds trust immediately.

Find my prior posts here: Standard Bank: Part 1 ?/5 • Nedbank: 1.4/5 • FNB: 2.2/5 • Absa 3/5 • Discovery • 3.4/5 • Investec: 4.6/5 • Capitec: 5/5 • Selcom: 5/5 •

Here's my posts rating Icon Design + Landing Page Part One and Part Two, and The World's Best Payment Options.

⭐️ My Refined Ratings Rubric

I continue to use my refined ratings rubric to evaluate banking apps. It's designed to be objective, so if you or I scored Standard Bank using the same criteria, we'd land on similar results. I frame it around a user's journey allegory—think of it as a traveller navigating a path, where each step represents key UX elements like functionality, design simplicity, intuitive flow, layout efficiency, and screen count.

1. Payment Functionality: What's in your backpack?

Score: 2/5. Standard Bank's app handles the basics well, like paying beneficiaries and buying data or airtime—solid for a newer build. But it lags behind competitors like Discovery or Investec, which offer advanced features for high earners, or the super-simple setups from Capitec and Selcom. To improve, they'd benefit from adding things like seamless investment tracking or personalized financial insights. There's plenty of room here, and since it's a fresh app, I'm optimistic about upcoming updates.

2. Icon Design + Landing Page: Does the landing page feel like a well-designed city or a chaotic marketplace?

Score 3/5.

Landing Page: Standard Bank has an extra landing page that isn't needed. It lands on your accounts page, but then forces you to click a few more times to transact. What benefit do I have in viewing my accounts if my intent is also to make a transaction? The first landing page is informational only, and if I contrast that to most of the other banks, they all at least provide you with a mechanism to transact from that screen. Standard does not do this - you get to view your accounts and your transaction history, and that's it.

Iconography: Standard Bank has decent icons, they make sense and they're contextually appropriate.

Labelling: Labeling could be better. Terms like "local payment" and "prescribed meter number" aren't used by any other bank I've reviewed (check my World's Best Payment Options post for what they use instead). No need to reinvent terms—a payment is just a payment. Calling it "local" adds confusion for no reason. To be a bit tongue-in-cheek, it's like parents calling kids "son" or "daughter" instead of by their names. Other than in the movies, who does that?

I've heard this is a new app, and it could be the push Standard Bank needs to modernize. There's good potential, but it's not quite there yet.

3. Transaction Intuition: A Clear Path or a Tangled Jungle?

Score 3/5. For the most part, Standard Bank’s transactional flow is understandable and logically structured, though it extends slightly beyond what might be necessary. I commend the team for achieving this level of intuitiveness in key areas. That said, consistency in styling is not logical at all.

To highlight a specific detail, and I offer this observation with a focus on precision, in the payment details screen, the flow of funds is effectively visualized with an arrow oriented left to right, a commendable choice. However, the subsequent screen shifts this to a top-to-bottom alignment. Why? Such variations, while subtle, can introduce minor disorientation; adhering to a uniform direction would enhance the overall seamlessness.

Another non-intuitive thing: Standard Bank chooses to have a specific input box for references, but then a different style to input amounts (the one field immediately below the other). Why? While FNB feels like every new feature is designed by a different team (and it may well be), Standard Bank feels like every screen or section of the screen is designed by a different intern. We can do better, let's adopt a standard - and stick with it.

4. Visual Clustering + Scrolling: Is everything within reach?

Score 2/5. White space is indeed a valuable design element, promoting readability and focus. However, Standard Bank’s implementation occasionally leans toward excess, underutilizing available screen real estate. This approach leaves opportunities to present additional information more efficiently. For instance, at least three screens employ only the upper third of the display, necessitating navigation to subsequent views. Is this necessary? "No". Does it add value? "Again, no." Exploring ways to balance spaciousness with informativeness could mitigate this and improve user efficiency.

5. Journey Length: A Quick Trek or a Marathon?

Score 2/5. As I mentioned up top, the two landing pages might be an attempt to justify the bottom nav bar—which I like, by the way. But if you don't have enough to fill it, that's fine; just land on the accounts page and start transactions from there. There's not much difference between the main landing and the transactional one. Right now, the process takes at least six screens, when five would be optimal.

In addition - and this is important - why do you have "Buy" in the bottom nav, but then also force me to click on "Buy Now" immediately thereafter? Trimming those would match what users expect: quick and convenient. Same with "Transact" and then "New Payment" - it makes me question why you even have a bottom nav, if you don't use it to reduce the number of steps needed to complete an action.

💬 Let me know how your own experience compares - or even better, try applying the rubric and share your score! 📱 Note: These reviews are based on the iOS versions of the apps