.svg)
The Financial Services Buyer Experience Report 2026
How AI is being embraced by financial services consumers and what brands need to do to meet their expectations.
After a year of rapid AI rollouts and innovation, financial services consumers are taking notice
A year ago, integrating AI into the financial services buying journey was still a debate among brands. They were rushing to deploy it, while consumers were openly resistant, and marketing and CX leadership anxiously analysed whether the risk was worth it.
A year later, the debate has quieted, in part because the AI got better. It’s faster, more polished, and more useful. So good, in fact, that 67% of UK financial services consumers can’t reliably tell when they’ve been talking to AI or a person.
The financial services brands that deployed AI effectively over the last year have been rewarded by consumers grateful for rapid, reliable service. In many cases, it’s so good that consumers just don’t care whether it was AI helping them or not. But when AI interactions go wrong, keep in mind that financial services consumers are quick to blame the brand that chose to deploy it, not the vendor who built it for them, by a margin of more than 3.1 to 1.
This changes the calculus of AI investment for financial services marketing and CX leaders. AI has cemented its importance in the buying journey, but a new question—and risk—has emerged: is your AI good enough to protect your brand and hand off to a human when it can’t?
Read on for what financial services consumers told us, what’s changed since 2025, how financial services buyers differ from consumers in other categories, and where the data points your CX investments next.
At a glance
Most financial services consumers have encountered a brand’s AI, and most don’t mind anymore
The negative sentiment that defined the 2025 conversation about brand AI has softened across most measures for financial services buyers.
58% of financial services buyers say AI made their experience better, while 33% say it made no difference and 9% say it made things worse. The large neutral middle is the real story: for consumer-facing technology like this, going unnoticed is a reasonable goal.
Financial Services vs other categories: 58% of financial services buyers say AI improved their experience, higher than the UK cross-industry average of 42%. Brands here are setting the pace on AI experience quality.
If a lot of menial information can be passed through AI, it would make no difference. But for a high-stakes purchase, I expect some sort of human interaction.
Gen Z, multiple categories purchase
Many financial services consumers can’t tell when they’re talking to AI
One of the most striking findings in the 2026 financial services data is also the simplest. When we asked UK financial services consumers whether they had ever realised, after the fact, that an interaction they thought was with a human was actually with AI, only 33% said yes. The other 67% either said they have never had that realisation or weren’t sure.
This indicates that AI technology has crossed a quality threshold. A year ago, brand AI was identifiable by its stiffness, scripts, and a general refusal to deviate from preset paths. Today, voice and text AI is good enough that most UK financial services consumers can’t reliably distinguish it from a human agent. That’s a win for the technology and for the brands that deployed it carefully.
When AI fails, brands take the blame by a wide margin
We asked financial services consumers who they primarily blame when an AI interaction with a brand goes badly. The result is a wake-up call for any CMO or CX leader who treats AI deployment as a vendor decision.
Blame the brand outpaces blame the AI by more than 3.1 to 1. Add the consumers who hold the brand at least partially accountable, and roughly 68% of UK financial services consumers will tie a bad AI experience back to the company that chose to deploy it. The vendor takes none of the heat.
I still feel AI is not there yet. You can get so far and hit a brick wall, meaning you have wasted your time and have to start again with a person.
Millennial, multiple categories purchase
Consumers want AI to introduce itself
UK financial services consumers have definitely made up their minds about whether AI should identify itself in customer interactions. 84% say it matters that a brand’s AI clearly identifies itself, and 56% say it matters a great deal. They’re not waiting for regulators to force the issue. They already expect disclosure, so for brands, this is a low-cost, high-trust tactic to deploy now.
“Forced” feelings are easing, but the volume hasn’t dropped
A year ago, 62% of UK financial services consumers said they felt forced to interact with a brand’s AI most or all of the time. This year, that figure dropped 16 points. But the underlying volume of AI interactions hasn’t dropped; consumers are simply encountering AI more often and resenting it a little less.
The risk for brands is complacency. Consumers are fickle, and over 30% of financial services consumers still feel that brands using AI to assist them value them less. That has dropped from 33% in 2025, a 3-point improvement. It’s a reminder that improvement must be continuous to keep your customers satisfied.
Consumers prefer AI for simplicity and speed
We asked UK financial services consumers when they actually prefer AI to a human, and the answers are consistent with the broader market — simplicity and speed win.
The “avoiding waiting on hold” finding is the one that should move financial services investment decisions. Roughly a third of UK financial services consumers will choose AI specifically to avoid a hold queue, meaning brands without a competent AI frontline are losing good leads at the moment they’re most likely to convert.
Because an AI assistant would have quicker output and answers.
Millennial, multiple categories purchase
Speed is the conversion battleground
If there’s a single piece of data in this report that should change a financial services marketing budget, it’s the gap between what consumers expect and what they actually get in response speed after filling out a lead form.
There is a 15-point gap between expectation and delivery, and a near-universal willingness to walk if a faster option appears.
The cost of a slow response is a lost conversion.
Consumers still prefer to call when they need help
For all the talk of digital-first buying journeys, UK financial services consumers still pick up the phone when they need help with a high-stakes purchase. 32% prefer calling when they have a problem and need help — more than any other channel.
Talking to a representative allows you to ask questions more quickly and more in depth.
Millennial, multiple categories purchase
Consumers mostly call for more information
When UK financial services consumers call a business during a high-stakes financial services purchase, they’re most often seeking more information. These are expensive, even life-altering purchases, and consumers want to be confident they’re making the right decision.
Disturbingly, 26% called because the information they needed wasn’t available online, a stat that has barely moved in three years despite continued investment in digital experiences.
Closing the online information gap is one of the highest-leverage CX investments a financial services brand can make.
Generative AI use when researching purchases is growing rapidly
We asked consumers whether they had used a generative AI tool, like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude, to help research a high-stakes purchase. The 14-point jump is among the largest year-over-year changes in the dataset.
A year ago, generative AI was something younger consumers experimented with. This year, it’s a default research step for most adults.
The Boomer story: AI is winning the holdouts
The biggest generational shift in this year’s financial services data isn’t among the digital natives. It’s among the older holdouts. 25% of Boomers have now used generative AI to research a high-stakes financial services purchase — up from 16% a year ago.
The picture that emerges is of an older audience that is now using generative AI as a research tool, while still preferring human-led conversations when they’re ready to make the decision. Even so, 100% of financial services Boomers still prefer a human representative when both options are equally available. The implication for financial services brands targeting older consumers: AI matters at the discovery stage, humans matter at the close.
Human connection still wins where it counts
For all the AI advances, UK financial services consumers haven’t changed their minds about what they want at the moment of a high-stakes financial services purchase decision. 51% prefer human help to AI when both are equally available, and 84% say human connection during a high-stakes financial services purchase is important or very important — up from the 79% recorded in 2025.
AI is welcome in the financial services buyer journey, especially upstream, but the human stays in the loop when the customer is ready to commit.
I still prefer speaking to a person. It’s easier to relate, build rapport, ask questions, and feel valued.
Gen X, multiple categories purchase
Consumers are more tolerant of bad experiences, but they’re hanging up faster
These two data points look contradictory at first, but they tell a connected story on a second look.
Consumers will not wait. They expect to be heard, and if they’re not, they’ll abandon the call but not necessarily abandon the brand.
46% of UK financial services consumers say they’re likely to stop doing business after a single bad experience.
But if you don’t answer their call quickly, you’ll never get a chance to make that first impression.
AI voice agents have arrived, and consumers are open to them
This year, for the first time, we asked UK financial services consumers whether they had spoken to an AI voice agent on the phone during a recent financial services purchase journey. 56% have either definitely or possibly done so — a meaningful level of adoption for a technology that barely existed twelve months ago.
That’s higher than the UK cross-industry average of 46%, suggesting financial services brands have been more aggressive than peers in deploying voice AI. Where exposure is high, getting the experience right matters more, not less.
AI has found its place in the buying journey, but it can’t replace the human touch
The 2026 data shows that we’re at an inflection point. Consumers demand fast service when making important purchase decisions, and they’re more open than ever to getting it from AI. As always, they also want to choose how and when to engage with your brand.
What it boils down to is properly balancing fast AI automation and empathetic human connections. One does not replace the other. AI must be deployed well enough that consumers hardly notice it, human help must be available whenever they need it, and every touchpoint has to be connected from clicks to AI chats to calls and conversions to make the journey seamless. The more effectively you can connect with your buyers at every moment, the more likely you are to convert them.
Discover Invoca’s AI →Methodology
For this report, Invoca surveyed 1,356 consumers in the US and UK who researched and made a high-stakes purchase in the last 12 months across seven industries: automotive, healthcare, home services, insurance, financial services, telecommunications, and travel. Only UK respondents who made a high-stakes financial services purchase in the last 12 months are included in this report (107 respondents). A high-stakes purchase is one where consumers take time to weigh options, research, and put more thought into the decision because of cost or complexity. Respondents who made more than one qualifying purchase may appear in more than one vertical report. Cross-category comparisons are made against the UK cross-industry average across all seven verticals. Year-over-year comparisons reference the 2025 Financial Services Buyer Experience Report; the 2025 reports published generational data on an all-respondent basis, so generational trends here are computed fresh from the 2026 financial services sample and, where cells are small, should be read as directional. Results may not total 100% due to rounding and multi-select question formats. The field survey was performed via the Gather conversational survey platform between 8 and 22 May 2026. Powered by Gather (gatherhq.com).