Which fintech design agency fits your product?

You open five agency portfolios. Every one says fintech. One shows a banking app, another a payment brand, a third an investment platform. They all look polished. You still cannot tell which team should design your next release.

Start with the financial task your customer needs to finish. An invoice-financing app and a retail bank can share a blue dashboard while needing very different design work.

Eleken, Humbleteam, Qubstudio, ustwo and UXDA are five agencies worth comparing through named product cases. Each has public evidence of financial product UX work. The useful distinction is the kind of problem, the stage of the product and the agency’s responsibility in that project.

Humbleteam publishes this comparison and is one of the agencies included. The agencies appear alphabetically. These are editorial assessments based on their published work, with no paid placements or numerical ranking.

Five agencies, five starting points

We selected agencies with a named financial product case, a described UX or interface design contribution, and enough detail to examine a customer journey. Those criteria apply to Humbleteam too. A financial-services logo or a marketing website alone does not qualify.

Public cases establish a reason to have a conversation. They do not establish today’s availability, fees or the exact team you will hire.

Eleken: extending a financial app already in use

Eleken lists a Kyiv address and a US company address in Newark, Delaware. Its PayUp case concerns a product that lets businesses receive early payment on unpaid invoices.

The project gives buyers something more useful than a finished dashboard. Eleken describes changes to invoice payout terms, in-app invoice creation and a design system. It also explains how the work was tested: Eleken built interactive prototypes, and the PayUp team tested them with existing users.

That division matters. If your startup already has customers and needs a designer to work through successive product changes, this is a relevant example. If you need an agency to recruit research participants and own the entire study, ask for that scope explicitly. The case does not assign that responsibility to Eleken.

Humbleteam: connected banking journeys

Humbleteam has offices in Prague and Dubai. Its OneBank case describes the design of core banking UX and UI, including balances, cards, transfers, transaction details and investments.

Look at how those activities connect. A customer may start with a balance, open a transaction and then send money. The design problem extends across that journey, including the information and security steps the customer encounters along the way.

This makes Humbleteam relevant to teams seeking financial product design across several connected flows. Humbleteam does not deliver production code. Your engineering team or development partner must own implementation; agree how design decisions will be checked against the product’s financial rules and technical constraints.

For a payments product, bring a specific operating problem to the conversation. Our payout reconciliation example shows the kind of detail that a generic dashboard brief can miss.

Qubstudio: redesigning a bank’s app with its digital team

Qubstudio lists offices in Lviv and London. Its Gulf Bank case describes collaboration with the bank’s digital team on a mobile banking redesign.

The published scope includes user and market research, product design, usability testing and design-system documentation. The case discusses navigation and onboarding, alongside requirements from different bank departments.

That is relevant when your product already sits inside a larger organization. The design work has to accommodate people who own different parts of the service, as well as customers using the app.

Before hiring, ask how your own approval process would work: who resolves conflicting requirements, who can recruit customers and who accepts a design for implementation. Gulf Bank is evidence of a particular collaboration. It does not mean the same arrangement will automatically fit your bank.

ustwo: defining a payment product across markets

ustwo lists studios in London, Malmö, New York and Lisbon. Its European Payments Initiative case covers a payment proposition developed through research, prototypes and experience principles.

The team explored how payment habits differed across European markets and tested prototypes in multiple languages. Peer-to-peer payments became an initial priority in the product vision.

Consider this evidence when your uncertainty is about the proposition itself: what customers need, which behavior the product should support first and what changes between markets. That is a different starting point from extending an app whose next feature is already agreed.

Ask how discovery would lead into delivery in your engagement. This case supports a discussion about research and product definition; it does not by itself establish responsibility for payment processing infrastructure.

UXDA: investment experiences across mobile and web

UXDA lists its European address in Riga, Latvia, with additional US and UK addresses. Its Garanti BBVA Securities case describes replacing a generic white-label experience with a tailored investment platform.

The case addresses investors with different levels of experience and a consistent experience across mobile and web. That makes it a relevant starting point for an investment business whose interface must serve both less experienced customers and regular traders.

Take a specific investing journey to the discussion. Ask the team to explain the information hierarchy, what changes for different users and how it works across channels. Confirm responsibility for suitability rules, disclosures and engineering with your own specialists. A design case is not evidence that an agency owns those functions.

How to choose: compare the responsibility behind the screens

Imagine you run an invoice-financing product and want customers to change a payout date. This is an illustrative buying scenario. The interface could be small, but the work depends on who defines the available terms, explains their consequences and verifies the result with customers.

Use the same brief with each shortlisted agency. Ask them to complete a table like this before comparing proposals:

The PayUp case illustrates why this helps. “The product was tested with users” leaves ownership vague. “The agency made prototypes and the client tested them” tells you which capability your own team must supply or purchase separately.

Keep that distinction when you read a portfolio or hear a pitch. For deeper checks, use our fintech case-study evidence guide. For transaction behavior, bring the pending, failed and refunded payment states into the brief.

Where this shortlist stops

A payments network needs evidence beyond a consumer banking screen. Our payment-network agency comparison addresses that buying situation. A protocol team should inspect DeFi UX agencies for work involving wallets and on-chain actions.

For the five teams here, the next useful output is a shortlist with a reason beside each name: the relevant case, the work it proves and the unanswered question. Send the same customer journey to those teams. You will have a much clearer basis for comparing their proposals than five attractive portfolios.