Financial organizations in Uzbekistan have learned to make a good first impression, but fail to guide customers to completion. This conclusion comes from the Global Customer Choice Index 2026 study presented by international banker Alexey Veretenov, managing partner at Senteo Inc.
How the study was conducted
The scope included 34 financial organizations: banks with offline networks, online banks, payment services, and digital players — Click, Payme, Uzum Bank, TBC Bank, AnorBank, Octobank, Openbank, AVO Bank, and others.
Secret shoppers made 336 visits, including office visits and online interactions. Uzbek citizens evaluated the experience on a five-point scale, where 3 points represents normal average practice and 4 — the level of developed markets.
Overall results
- cumulative score — 2.92 with volatility of 1.77;
- offline channel — 2.91;
- online channels — 2.93.
Both channels are slightly below the "normal" benchmark.
A separate indicator is volatility: it reflects not the average service level, but its consistency. Zero would mean identical ratings across all visits. Higher values indicate less predictable customer experience: good today, worse tomorrow.
Main gap: from consultation to registration
The weakest online experience indicator is "results and channel integration": score 2.21 with volatility of 2.06.
Customers can get information but cannot always independently complete the account opening or application process.
A telling offline statistic: only in 37% of cases did employees mention the mobile app to customers. Many left without materials, installation assistance, or clarity on next steps.
Where strengths lie
- office environment and service — 3.16 each;
- websites for first impression and usability — 3.38;
- call centers demonstrate operator professionalism and information accuracy.
Offline weakness: branch technology (2.55). A modern office should function as part of unified digital process: clear navigation, minimal paperwork, quick app transition, and data sharing across channels.
Business customers receive worse service than retail
The gap between segments is notable:
- retail banks — 2.95 with volatility of 1.71;
- small and medium business banks — 2.84 with volatility of 1.91.
The corporate segment lags both in average score and consistency.
For businesses, this is more critical: duplicate documents, waiting times, and complex account opening become direct operational costs. A significant signal for a market where nearly all banks prioritize SMB as a strategic focus.
Chat underperforms phone
The "chat" criterion scored 2.77 — below call center ratings. Customers complained of slow response times, rigid button-based bots, difficulty reaching operators, and circular dialogue scenarios.
Digital players set the standard
Differences between organization types:
- traditional banks — 2.91;
- online banks and neobanks — 3.14.
Digital-native players shape customer expectations for speed and simplicity of interaction.
"Competition no longer occurs only between banks — it occurs between different financial interface models: branches, apps, payment services, neobanks, and ecosystems," the expert notes.
His recommendations for the market
- reduce service dependence on human factors;
- digitize branches, integrating them into digital architecture;
- develop omnichannel capabilities — preserve customer action history across channels;
- manage conversion, not just service quality;
- redesign chats: bots should understand requests, not guide through menus;
- work on product differentiation.
What this means for customers
The study documents what everyone encounters: product terms are hidden in PDFs, action history is lost when switching between website and app, and simple actions require too many steps.
The practical takeaway remains: comparing conditions is easier before visiting a bank. Comparing rates of different Uzbek banks in one place is simpler than browsing organization websites one by one searching for the right page.
This material is based on an expert's opinion column.