Key Takeaways
- Our latest Checkout UX benchmark shows that most ecommerce checkouts have substantial room for improvement
- A poor Checkout experience risks users abandoning their cart and ultimately failing to purchase
- In this article, we provide 10 ways to improve Checkout UX across desktop sites, mobile sites, and apps
Key Stats
- 59% of Desktop and Mobile sites have a “mediocre” or worse Checkout UX performance
- 60% of Apps have a “mediocre” or worse Checkout UX performance
At Baymard, our 2026 Checkout ecommerce UX benchmark indicates most sites — whether desktop, mobile, or app — have poor-to-mediocre performing Checkout UX.
While many users will struggle through a poor checkout experience — experiencing only lost time and frustration — some won’t bother and will abandon.
Indeed, our most recent survey of over 1,000 shoppers revealed that 17% have abandoned an online purchase during checkout over the last 3 months because the checkout process was too long or complex.
What’s more, “too long or complex a checkout process” typically translates to entirely solvable UX issues.
It’s therefore possible for many ecommerce sites to reduce checkout abandonments — if the checkouts are designed to support users from cart to confirmation.
Additionally, while agentic AI in ecommerce adds a new wrinkle to the ecommerce user experience, our data indicates that only a minority of users are ready to trust agentic AI to complete a checkout process on their behalf. (#AI031)
Consequently, the vast majority of users are still progressing through checkout manually, using only browser form-filling tools for assistance.
With that in mind, in this article we’ll analyze the current landscape of ecommerce Checkout UX, before diving into 10 common design best practices grounded in our research findings to drive better Checkout UX performance.
Note: At Baymard, we’re currently retesting and verifying all of our existing Checkout research. We expect to publish this new and overhauled research in the 2nd quarter of 2027.
Current State of Ecommerce Checkout UX
For this analysis, we’ve summarized the entirety of this year’s 44,000+ checkout usability scores (including 35,500+ worst and best practice implementation examples) across the Cart & Checkout theme’s topics by plotting the benchmarked checkout flows’ performance in the scatterplot above.
Each dot represents the summarized UX score of one site across the guidelines within that respective topic. (The top row is the total Checkout UX performance.)
Taking desktop sites first, the benchmark reveals that 59% of the leading US and European ecommerce sites have a “mediocre” or worse Checkout UX performance, with only 2% rating “good”.
Moreover, none are rated “perfect”, and 15% of the sites have checkouts that are downright “poor” or “very poor”.
Mobile sites perform equally bad, with 59% of sites having a “mediocre” or worse Checkout UX performance and only 1% rating “good”.
Finally, mobile apps score just slightly worse, with 60% of apps performing “mediocre” or worse, while only 1 site is rated as “good”.
In short: most sites (whether desktop, mobile, or apps) have a poor-to-mediocre Checkout UX — leading directly to lost sales.
To get started on improving this picture, below we provide 10 Checkout UX best practices to adopt to improve your site’s Checkout UX.
Beyond the 10 best practices below, consider also scheduling a Checkout audit with one of our UX auditors.
1) Save Account Creation for the Confirmation Step (56% Don’t)
While users should always be able to complete a “guest checkout”, getting an invitation to create an optional account is appreciated by some users.
During Baymard’s large-scale testing, most participants explained how they would likely create accounts at sites they expected to visit or purchase from multiple times, and in practice, having an account at a site saves users time and makes checking out more efficient.
“I want to ‘Continue as guest’.” Checking out at Etsy, this participant selected the prominent option for “Continue as a guest” (first image), yet halfway through checkout was presented with another surprise invitation to create an account, this time with the “Continue as guest” option much more subdued (second image). Mistaking that she had to create an account in order to continue, she began inputting a password before noticing the link to continue without registering. Repeatedly inviting users to create an account at the beginning and during checkout can come across as “pushy” or even deceptive.
Northern Tool offers users the chance to create an account at the billing address step, running the risk of some users becoming distracted from their primary goal: completing the checkout. Even if account creation is only a password field, users can still have issues if in particular their preferred password can’t be used due to the password requirements.
Yet at the same time, interrupting all guest users to suggest they create an account too early — before or in the middle of the checkout process — was observed to cause some participants to hesitate and stop their progression through checkout.
During testing at Stance (first image) and Williams Sonoma (second image), participants selecting the “Guest Checkout” option were reassured that they could create an account following checkout, allowing them to devote their focus to getting through the checkout process.
To keep users focused on the primary goal — getting through the checkout process — sites should save the option to create an account until after checkout is complete.
In testing, this implementation performed better than presenting the invitation at either the outset of or during the checkout process.
By saving account creation for the confirmation step, users won’t have to evaluate the pros and cons of creating an account before they’ve finalized their order — instead, they can proceed directly to complete their purchase.
2) Always Collapse Completed Accordion Steps into Summaries (72% Don’t)
At Pep Boys, users are unable to review previously inputted information, as each accordion section closes with no visible details as users progress through checkout.
Unlike traditional multistep checkouts, accordion-style checkouts (where users progress through individual expanding and collapsing sections of data entry) often lack a separate order review step, which is critical for allowing users to fully verify their previously entered data and selections before finalizing their order.
Effectively, without an efficient way to review order information, users of accordion checkouts may hesitate to submit their order or waste valuable time and effort revisiting previous steps.
Therefore, it’s key that accordion checkouts collapse the past checkout steps into summaries, allowing users to review the previously entered information without the need to click to view them.
Doing so helps accordion checkouts efficiently enable users to review their previously entered information in a seamless way.
As well, the summaries of past steps help to enhance users’ sense of progression, similar to positive live inline validation.
3) Use “Delivery Date” Instead of “Delivery Speed” (48% Don’t)
“So, they give you 4-7 business days. So then, really today is almost over, so four days, next Wednesday, like, May 4th?” This participant at Snowe referenced a calendar to estimate the actual order arrival date, which was unclear from the provided shipping speed estimate.
3 additional examples of how users aren’t provided with an answer to the question they’re most concerned about when it comes to delivery speed: “When will I receive my order?”. Macy’s only provides prominent shipping names and “Transit time” (first image), John Lewis forces users to consider “working days” and public holidays (second image), and H&M simply provides an estimated delivery day range (“2–3 days”) — which many users will interpret as “I’ll get my order in 2 to 3 days from today”, not considering weekends or holidays.
Users have one main concern for delivery speed: “When will I receive my order?”
The solution historically used within ecommerce is to clearly state the shipping speed for each of the shipping options; for example, “Standard: 2 Business Days – $4.95”.
However, this is a very business-centric way to convey this information.
Displaying “Shipping Speed: 2 Business Days” forces users to research, calculate, and sometimes even guess when they will actually receive their order.
This not only makes it less transparent when the order will be received, but it also introduces a lot of choice complexity into the checkout process during the user’s delivery selection.
“I’d like it delivered. ‘Delivers Thursday’.” This participant shopping for a gift at Apple easily determined that his order would arrive by the desired date with the estimated delivery dates listed next to each shipping option.
Instead, providing a delivery date, or a date range, allows users to immediately understand when they’ll receive their order (e.g., “Delivery on April 4th” or “Delivery April 4th–8th”).
4) Show the Cutoff Time as a Countdown (83% Don’t)
“Now, it’s almost 3:00 here, that means it’ll be noon in California…‘Orders placed before 11:00 a.m. PST ship same day’. So this is going ship tomorrow?” This participant on Stance came to a halt to mentally calculate when his order would arrive, deeply considering the static cutoff time and how it related to his current time zone (Eastern Time).
On American Eagle, static text informs users about a cutoff time listed in EST, necessitating that users not in the same time zone calculate for themselves the relevant time.
In addition to the delivery date, many users want to know when they have to place their order to have their package delivered by that date.
This is especially important for those who’ve selected an expedited shipping option — and have paid more to have their order arrive quicker.
When sites do not provide a cutoff time for ordering, they risk users selecting a shipping option but missing the nonspecified cutoff time — and getting their order later than they expected.
But the problem is not entirely solved with just a cutoff time.
Participants in a different time zone than the one presented had to manually account for the time zone difference (e.g., translate “1PM ET” to Central Standard Time), bringing them to a complete halt and introducing an opportunity for errors as they attempted to convert the time in their head.
Another group of participants misinterpreted the static cutoff time as the “estimated delivery date” when quickly scanning the page.
”That’s actually nice that it tells me ‘get it by this time if you order within a certain period of time’.” This participant at Best Buy noted the precise cutoff countdown, helping him quickly understand how much time he had to make his purchase decision in order to receive the order by the estimated delivery date.
Thus, the cutoff time should be displayed as a countdown rather than a static time.
For example, “Order in the next 43 minutes to receive your order by Tuesday April 4” instead of “Order by 9AM ET to receive your order by Tuesday April 4”.
5) Use Buttons or Buttons Plus an Open Text Field for Updating Cart Quantity (95% Don’t)
“Whoops, no, we don’t want 21…Hold on, let’s try that again.” This participant on Williams Sonoma meant to update the quantity from 1 to 2, but the default quantity “1” remained even after she began inputting her desired quantity, resulting in the incorrect “21”.
Increasing or decreasing the quantity for items in the cart is seemingly a simple and straightforward task.
However, during our large-scale testing, a subgroup of participants had significant issues with this seemingly straightforward task.
In fact, some quantity changes made to orders went unregistered by participants — which led to orders being placed with incorrect product quantities.
Moreover, mobile users are likely to be more frequently and severely challenged by unoptimized quantity selectors due to the smaller viewport and general increased risk of input errors.
On Walmart’s mobile site, the quantity field is adjusted using either the plus/minus buttons or by entering in a new quantity into the text field.
Tweaking the quantity field UI to be buttons or buttons with a text field generally resolves issues users have with the quantity selector in the cart.
6) Include All Fulfillment Options in the Shipping-Selector Interface (53% Don’t)
“I’m trying to see…if they would let me just go ahead and ‘ship to store’ right from here, which I guess it doesn’t. At least, I’m not seeing that there.” Despite in-store pickup being featured on product details pages (first image), this participant on Madewell was unable to switch to this option during checkout after wanting to avoid shipping charges (second image). The need to return to the cart or product page to see available alternative fulfillment methods and switch among them presents an undue burden on users who are trying to compare options.
“I’m trying to click ‘Pickup person’, but that’s not it.” This participant shopping for groceries on Target’s mobile app looked for a way to switch from store pickup to local delivery during the one-step checkout process (first image), but there wasn’t a way to switch the fulfillment method. She returned to the cart to select an alternative fulfillment method (second image): “So I’m gonna go back again with my red arrow…‘Switch delivery method’, there we go.” The need to return to the cart to switch among fulfillment methods slows users moving through checkout.
While many sites provide the option for store pickup and other alternative fulfillment methods on product pages or in the cart, this wasn’t enough for participants who changed their mind during the checkout process.
In practice, depending on their circumstances and available fulfillment options, users may end up preferring store pickup, local delivery, or warehouse-based shipping for order fulfillment.
However, requiring users who change their mind at the shipping-selection step to navigate back to an earlier stage of checkout becomes burdensome and potentially disorienting.
IKEA UK lists all order fulfillment options on a single checkout page, with “Click and collect” — the ideal choice for both cost savings and sustainability — selected by default.
During testing of Amazon Whole Foods’s mobile site, participants could easily switch between local delivery and store pickup at the fulfillment step, saving time and effort by avoiding having to navigate back to the cart.
Instead, all available shipping and fulfillment methods — including traditional warehouse-based options, local store delivery, and in-store pickup — should be provided directly within the shipping-selection interface of checkout.
As one participant from testing shared, “Sometimes I’ll be in this situation where I’ll be at the final stage of a checkout, and…I’ll be thinking about picking something up, and then for some reason or another, I’ll decide that I’m not going to and I’m actually gonna use shipping. So I do like that there’s still an option even at this stage to update it rather than having to manually go back to the cart and do it yourself.”
Presenting comprehensive fulfillment options together in the shipping-selection interface not only aids users who change their mind at the last minute but also allows sites to highlight alternative fulfillment options as an advantage they hold over pure online retailers.
For instance, by framing store pickup as a “Free Shipping Method” available for even the smallest of orders, an omnichannel’s online store can put forward a much more attractive and competitive offer compared to its pure online competitors, while simultaneously drawing customers into physical stores (as customers go to pick up their items).
7) Mark Both Required and Optional Fields Explicitly (50% Don’t)
“I don’t normally like giving out my number in general for spam reasons and all that…So I would think/hope that they would, if I did not put in my phone number, that they would just direct it to my email.” This participant at Everlane hesitated to move forward without inputting her phone number, debating with herself before eventually deciding to try it (which was successful). When only required fields (and not optional fields) are explicitly labeled, users may still experience anxiety about the implied optional details.
Despite all of the fields being required at Wayfair, it’s impossible to tell that this is the case.
Walmart makes it easy to quickly determine which fields are required (denoted with asterisks) and which are optional (denoted with text in parentheses).
In our large-scale UX testing, 32% of participants did not complete at least one required field when encountering a form where only the optional fields were marked.
Performance did not improve on forms where the required fields were marked and the optional fields were not.
And when no fields are marked, often because all are required, users often fail to notice text at the beginning of the form stating “All fields are required” — and thus leave some blank, assuming they’re optional.
In short, it’s best to be explicit and mark both required and optional fields in forms to ensure there’s no confusion.
8) Choose the Right Interface Type for Optional Inputs (33% Don’t)
At Backcountry, the checkout form displays optional fields for ”Company” (first image) and ”Address Line 2” (second image), slowing users’ progress as they scan down the form.
At OBI, the mutually exclusive radio button options for delivery address (“Lieferung an die Rechnungsadresse” and “Lieferung an eine andere Adresse”, or “Deliver to the billing address” and “Deliver to another address”) make it harder to scan and comprehend this binary option. Instead, this input could be presented as a checkbox for “Use billing as shipping address”.
It might seem that having optional fields and selections in the checkout comes relatively “risk free”, as users will simply skip such optional fields if not relevant to them.
But during testing it became very clear that optional fields and values were often the sole cause for disrupting some participants’ checkout flows.
In particular, these fields were guilty of causing anything from participants needlessly interacting with completely irrelevant fields to causing participants to take 5–30% longer to complete checkout steps, doubting the correctness of order data, getting validation error messages, or submitting orders with incorrect information.
The most common cause of issues in these fields was the incorrect interface types used.
At Lowe’s, optional fields that will not apply to all users, including ”Company Name” and ”Address Line 2” (”Add Apartment, Suite, Building, Etc.”), are hidden behind links so they are accessible but not overly distracting.
The right interface type for optional inputs depends on several factors, but uncommon inputs (e.g., “Address Line 2”) should generally be hidden behind a link.
Additionally, using radio buttons and drop-downs for entirely optional inputs should be avoided.
9) Explain Why a Phone Number Is Required (47% Don’t)
“‘Continue to payment.’ Oh, ‘Phone Number’.” This participant checking out at Apple skipped the “Phone Number” field, preferring to avoid providing this personal detail, but received an error message because it was required.
Our UX testing consistently reveals that users are concerned about the security and confidentiality of their personal information online, with a common hesitation to provide their phone number during checkout.
68% of respondents in our survey are reluctant to provide a phone number at checkout (see Quantitative Insight #GC049 for an interactive version of this graph alongside key findings and actionable insights).
In fact, according to a survey conducted by Baymard, 68% of respondents reported being reluctant to provide a phone number.
This reluctance stems from concerns ranging from receiving unwanted marketing calls to fears of identity theft.
In testing, many assumed the site would use their number for unwanted marketing purposes.
When confronted with a required phone number field without any explanation, some participants in our testing provided false information or abandoned the checkout process altogether.
This not only undermines the integrity of customer data but also leads to lost sales.
“’In case there’s a billing issue’, let me see…‘Don’t worry, we never share a number with anyone’. This is helpful, like they’re just saying in case I need to contact you, you have your number entered.” Checking out at American Eagle, this participant appreciated the explanation detailing how the “Phone Number” was used to verify the credit card payment.
To address users’ privacy concerns and avoid the problems caused by fake data, sites should clearly explain why a phone number is required and what it will be used for.
Our checkout testing has consistently shown that providing an explanation for why a phone number is being collected alleviates the vast majority of users’ privacy concerns.
By providing a clear, concise explanation for why the information is needed, making the field optional, or removing it altogether, sites can address the users’ privacy concerns head-on.
10) Allow Users to Designate Gifts in the Cart (68% Don’t)
At Mejuri, no mention of gifting is offered in the cart, which may cause users intending to order a gift to hesitate to move forward.
At Sephora, users seeking to purchase a gift may not know that the site offers gift messaging or gift-wrap, as none of these benefits are offered or mentioned in the cart.
Some users may face anxiety and unease if they cannot see gifting options when they view their shopping cart.
Other users, coming to the site with the sole purpose of purchasing a gift, may misinterpret the lack of gifting options in the cart as an indication that the site doesn’t offer gifting at all, and may consequently abandon.
Target offers gifting options in both the cart (first image) and further in the checkout flow (second image), making it very easy for users to gift products.
“Let’s see if I can add a gift-wrap or message.” This participant at Apple was excited to add gift-wrapping to her order and immediately homed in on the option provided in the cart (first image), revealing an overlay with all available options and their associated costs (second image).
Thus, sites that have any kind of gifting options should allow users to designate one or more products as gifts in the cart.
However, if users in the “Added to Cart” interface have the option to bypass the cart step, then the cart step cannot be the only place where items or orders can be designated as a gift.
Instead, it must be possible to designate an order as a gift further in the checkout flow as well.
Checkout UX: Key Opportunities Remain
Our benchmark has revealed there’s much room for improvement in Checkout UX, given that the performance of 59% of desktop and mobile sites and 60% of apps is “mediocre” or worse.
Avoiding the pitfalls described in this article by adhering to the 10 best practices is the first step toward improving users’ checkout experience.
For additional inspiration, consider clicking through the Cart & Checkout Page Designs, as these showcase Checkout implementations from 340+ leading US and European ecommerce sites and can be a good resource when considering redesigning a Checkout flow — finding not only what to emulate, but also what to avoid.
This article presents the research findings from just a few of the 700+ UX guidelines in Baymard – get full access to learn how to create a “State of the Art” ecommerce user experience.
If you want to know how your desktop site, mobile site, or app performs and compares, then learn more about getting Baymard to conduct a UX Audit of your site or app.
