Redesigning Fondsfinder
so people can compare funds.
Fondsfinder is Raiffeisen's public tool for choosing investment funds. It asked a few questions, then left people comparing funds by opening PDFs and taking notes by hand. I redesigned the whole flow and designed a comparison feature.
Raiffeisen's fund-finding tool was hardest to use for first-time investors. Six user tests showed where it failed. I redesigned the flow and added fund comparison: a side-by-side view with the numbers people needed, including cost, on one screen.
The problem
The old tool led to dead ends and had no way to compare funds, so people opened PDFs side by side and took notes by hand. Many couldn't find a fund that suited them.
What I did
Fixed the problems in order: first the questionnaire (with a built-in glossary), the results list and the fund page, then a new comparison feature.
The feature
Compare up to three funds side by side, straight from the results list. Every key number lines up, including cost, which the old fund page never showed.
Who did what
Another team ran the research in German and gave me the findings. I wrote the questionnaire text with a German-speaking colleague. The structure, interactions, flow and comparison feature are my work.
The old tool narrowed the choice
but didn't help people decide
Raiffeisen Capital Management is one of Austria's largest fund managers. Its Fondsfinder is a free public tool: you answer a few questions, get a shortlist of funds, pick one, and invest through online banking.
By law, the tool can't give advice or say which fund is right for you. It can only make the funds clear enough to compare. That's a design problem, and it's where the old tool fell short.
Research also showed people trusted the Raiffeisen brand more than the tool itself. Several said they'd invest online because of the brand, so a confusing tool put that trust at risk.
Mostly marketing text. Testers called it “optically dated” and skimmed it.
Three cards that looked the same. Testers only understood the Sustainability option.
What was mine,
and what wasn't
A German-speaking team ran the research with German-speaking users and gave me the finished findings. I don't speak German, so I worked from translations and wrote the questionnaire text with a German-speaking colleague.
Everything after the research was mine, starting with understanding the findings well enough to choose which problem to solve first. Then came the tool's structure, how each screen works, the full flow and the new fund comparison feature, which most of this case study is about.
Six people, four tasks,
five findings
Before testing, the team wrote down their assumptions, each starting with “Wir glauben, dass…” (“We believe that…”). They then ran six moderated sessions with four tasks each, and marked each assumption as confirmed or disproved.
Because each finding was tested against real behaviour, I could rely on it without having been in the sessions.
Across all sessions, five problems came up again and again. They decided what I designed, and in what order.
Newcomers got stuck on the first screen
When asked to pick a fund type, less experienced users got stuck. Only “Sustainability” was clear. The other two options weren't explained.
“Wüsste nicht was sie jetzt klicken soll.” · Less-experienced testers felt “alleine gelassen.”User feedback: first screen
Jargon confused newcomers, not experts
Newcomers didn't know terms like Sondervermögen, Volatilität, Volumen and Risiko-Ertragsprofil. Experienced users had no trouble. The fix had to help one group without slowing the other.
“Hat keine Ahnung was der Begriff Volumen bedeutet.”User feedback: terminology
People had no way to compare funds
To compare funds, users opened two PDFs, switched between fund pages and took notes by hand. They expected to compare from the shortlist. This was the biggest unmet need.
“Das Vergleichen zweier Fonds funktioniert für sie gar nicht und ist ein ‘Pain’.” · They wanted “eine tabellarische Form.”User feedback: comparability
The flow had dead ends
The last screen led nowhere (a “totes Ende”, or dead end). Going back restarted the whole questionnaire, and people couldn't find the buy button. Both were confirmed in testing.
“Am Ende der Strecke … verwirrt, da es ein totes Ende ist.” (verified)User feedback: navigation
Cost was missing from the key figures
Cost, usually the first thing people compare, wasn't shown at all. People recognised the risk score but didn't understand it.
“KOSTEN FEHLEN: sehr relevant.”User feedback: key figures
From these five findings, I wrote a problem statement and a question to guide the design:
People need a simple way to find, understand and compare funds, and choose with confidence. The old Fondsfinder led to dead ends and had no way to compare funds, so many people couldn't find one that suited them.
How might we help people find and compare funds that suit them, with information they can understand, so they can choose with confidence?
What I designed,
and in what order
Five problems, one designer and a fixed timeline. I worked on four parts of the tool, redesigning screens and adding new features, in this order.
Comparison was the biggest need, but it came third. People can only compare funds once the landing page and questionnaire get them to a shortlist.
Landing page
The old page was mostly marketing text, and testers skimmed it. I made it a clear starting point with two options: start the questionnaire, or see all funds.
Questionnaire
Newcomers got stuck on the fund-type question and on jargon. I rewrote the questions in plain words, explained every option in a glossary panel (the Wissensbox), and added a progress bar and a skip option.
Fund comparison
The biggest need: people compared funds by opening PDFs side by side. I added a compare checkbox to every fund in the results list, and a view that shows up to three funds side by side, with cost shown for the first time.
Fund details page
The old page was a dead end with no clear way to buy. I added tabs, clear key figures and next steps: buy through online banking, read the documents, or book an advisor.
Start with the landing page and questionnaire, so people can reach a shortlist of funds. Design comparison after that, because it only helps once people have funds to compare.
Starting with comparison, since it was the biggest need. I ruled it out: if people can't reach a shortlist, they never get to compare, so it would have gone unused.
Fixing the questionnaire,
results and fund pages
Three problems had to be fixed before comparison made sense: the confusing first screen (F1), the jargon (F2) and the dead ends (F4).
A clearer questionnaire
It now starts by explaining what's about to happen in three short points, then “Los geht's” (let's go). A progress bar shows how many questions are left, a live “24 Fonds available” counter shows the results narrowing, and a skipoption (Überspringen) lets people move on if they're unsure.
Explains what's coming before asking anything.
Progress bar, plain wording, a skip option and the Wissensbox on the right.
The Wissensbox: definitions next to the question
Newcomers needed terms explained, but experienced users didn't. So the definitions sit in a Wissensbox (knowledge box), a panel beside the question that explains only the terms on screen (Konservative / Ausgewogene / Wachstums strategies; Aktienfonds, Anleihefonds, Mischfonds). Experts can ignore it, and newcomers can open it without leaving the question.
Put the definitions next to the question, in an optional panel that explains only the terms currently on screen.
A pop-up glossary of every term. I ruled it out because it interrupts everyone to help some people, and takes newcomers away from the question they're answering.
Just a 1–7 scale. People recognised the number but didn't understand it (F5).
Keeps the 1–7 scale, but explains every risk class in the Wissensbox.
A results list you can filter and sort
The old results page was a grid of similar-looking cards with no filters or sorting. The new Fondsliste(fund list) adds filters, quick toggles, search and sort. Most importantly, every card has a “Fond vergleichen” (compare fund) checkbox, which opens the comparison view.
A flat grid. No filtering, no sorting, no comparison.
Filters, search, sort, and a “Fond vergleichen” checkbox on every fund.
A fund page with clear next steps
The old fund page was a dead end (F4). The new one has tabs, clear key figures, and both share classes (Ausschüttend / Thesaurierend) with their ISINs. Most importantly, it shows clear next steps: a buy button that opens online banking, the legally required “Das ist keine Anlageberatung” (this is not investment advice), the fund documents, and an option to book an advisor.
Dense text, no clear next step, and no cost shown.
Key figures at a glance, a visual risk scale, and both share classes with their ISINs.
Comparing up to three funds,
side by side
This feature didn't exist before. It answers the biggest finding in the research (F3).
People were comparing funds by opening two PDFs and taking notes by hand. The tool offered no way to do it.
Testers wanted to compare from their shortlist, and asked for it as a table: “eine tabellarische Form.” So I designed a side-by-side view that opens from the “Fond vergleichen” checkbox in the results list, and from the Merkliste, where people save favourite funds.
Why only three funds
Testers also often felt overwhelmed: the results list already felt “überfordernd” (too much). An unlimited comparison table would have brought that problem back.
Three is the most that fits without squashing the columns or scrolling sideways. It's enough for a real shortlist, and few enough to take in at once.
Limit comparison to three funds, so every row stays visible without scrolling sideways.
An unlimited table. I ruled it out because the columns get too narrow for the rows to line up, which makes the comparison hard to read, and because testers already felt overwhelmed.
Choosing what to compare
Each row is something testers said they needed, not just data that happened to be available. The cost row also fixes F5.
How I'd prove it worked
I don't have data from after launch, so I won't claim results. What I can show is that each change targets a problem seen in testing, and that each one can be measured.
Here's how I'd measure each one if I ran this in production.
Completion rate
How many people drop off at each question, and how many reach a shortlist. Fewer should drop off at the old dead end.
Comparison use
How often people with a shortlist open the comparison, how many funds they compare, and whether comparing leads to buying.
Wissensbox use
Which terms people open, and whether they carry on afterwards. Opening a definition and continuing means it's working.
Task success
Repeat the original four test tasks on the redesign, such as “find and compare the cost of two funds”, measuring time and success rate.
Confidence
One question after each task, “how sure are you in this choice?”, asked before and after the redesign. Quick to run, and it shows whether the tool earns trust.
Handoff to online banking
How many people go from the buy button to online banking (ELBA), the closest thing this tool has to a sale.
Each metric ties to a specific finding, and none needs new tools to run.
What I'd do differently
Working from translated findings was a real limit. I could read what users struggled with, but not see how they reacted. Next time I'd watch at least one session live, even without speaking German. Seeing someone hesitate tells you more than a written summary.
The three-fund limit is the decision I'm most confident in, and the one I'd most want to test. Experienced users might want more, and first-time investors might find three too many. I'd rather find the right number with data than assume it.
I'm happy to walk through the questionnaire, the structure decisions or the research in more detail.
Let's talk.
Get in touchSee also the Tringg case study, where one usability test changed the product.