The project Research into why people move from paying with the SUBE app to digital wallets such as Mercado Pago. It combines interviews, a survey, desk research and Google Trends. The conclusion is that the experience works in everyday use and breaks down in error handling. It closes with three How Might We questions and three design proposals aimed at that moment and at showing savings.
Role UX Researcher
Year 2026
Tools Google Forms · Google Trends · Figma · FigJam Key decisions 1 Choose which problem to research Of five problem areas, the lack of benefits compared with the competition scored highest in the prioritization matrix and became the focus of the research.
2 Cross four sources I combined interviews, a survey, desk research and Google Trends, and crossed the results across seven axes so the findings didn’t depend on a single sample.
3 Design for the moment of error Triangulation showed that the experience breaks down in error handling. Based on three How Might We questions, the proposals targeted that moment and made savings visible on three screens: balance check, home and activity.
Project stages 1 Context Hypothesis: without benefits, the app loses ground → 2 Qualitative research Ten in-depth interviews → 3 Quantitative research A survey to measure and compare → 4 Secondary sources What reviews and searches show → 5 Synthesis Seven axes and a breaking point → 6 Strategy From the journey map to three questions → 7 Design Three design proposals → 8 Next steps Recommendations and next steps → Each stage opens in interactive mode.
Results Copy link : Results Prioritization matrix (weighted score out of 5) No benefits compared with competitors 5 / 5
App limited to basic functions 4.45 / 5
The competition innovates faster 4.05 / 5
Impractical top-up crediting 3.55 / 5
Little communication of benefits 3.15 / 5
Survey · Likert scale from 1 to 5 Overall satisfaction 4.09 / 5
Intention to keep using 4.45 / 5
If it offered more benefits, I would use it more often 4.81 / 5
Another app is more convenient 2.81 / 5
The lack of incentives affects use 2.72 / 5
The benefits it offers today are attractive 2.36 / 5
Survey · What they use the app for Pay with SUBE Digital 36.4%
See SUBE points on the map 0%
Survey · Most used way to pay or top up Multiple choice: percentages add up to more than 100%.
Google Trends · Week of October 19–25, 2025 (interest from 0 to 100) “mercado pago + reintegro” 70 / 100
“mercado pago + transporte público” 96 / 100
Project slides The slides and documents are PDFs in Spanish and are not translated: everything is also explained in the text of the case.
‹ Swipe for more · Tap to enlarge
›
×
Pinch or double-tap to zoom
2026 · UX Researcher
SUBE App UX Research Case Study
UX RESEARCH MOBILE APP MIXED METHODS Swipe sideways or use the arrows
Context
Hypothesis: without benefits, the app loses ground What I did I reviewed media coverage and the app’s features to identify five problem areas in the experience. To choose which one to research, I built a prioritization matrix with four weighted criteria: impact on the experience, frequency, impact on the product and how accessible it was to research. Then I set four objectives and four key questions that guided the whole process.
Why The starting hypothesis: if the SUBE app offered competitive benefits, its perceived value would grow and people would consider it an option again. Fares rise month after month, and the media present digital wallets and banks as the way to travel with discounts and cashback.
What I found The prioritization matrix gave the top score to the lack of benefits compared with the competition (5 out of 5), followed by the app being limited to basic functions (4.45). That made it the focus of the research.
Results from this stage
Prioritization matrix (weighted score out of 5) No benefits compared with competitors 5 / 5
App limited to basic functions 4.45 / 5
The competition innovates faster 4.05 / 5
Impractical top-up crediting 3.55 / 5
Little communication of benefits 3.15 / 5
View the prioritization matrix ⤢ View the hypothesis ⤢
02 Copy link : Qualitative research Qualitative research
Ten in-depth interviews What I did I interviewed 10 public transport riders in depth in Buenos Aires province and city (PBA and CABA), with informed consent and a semi-structured guide covering mobility habits, payment methods, the experience with the card and the app, and perceived value.
Why I needed to understand everyday decisions and habits before measuring anything. I chose an exploratory qualitative approach so that explicit and latent needs could surface, along with insights the hypothesis did not anticipate.
What I found The interviews confirm the hypothesis and broaden it: SUBE’s problem is also perceptual and experiential , as well as functional. The app does its job but gives no reason to choose it; payment decisions are driven by convenience and savings , and the physical card is still the backup when something fails. The eight insights from the cross-analysis, each with its design opportunity, are in the drop-down below.
View the eight insights Interview insights
Convenience drives the choice of payment method: people prefer options with fewer steps and less friction, even over the official system. UX opportunity: Reduce steps, simplify flows and position SUBE as the fastest option, as well as the official one. The cost of transport shapes the whole experience: fare increases make people more sensitive to savings. UX opportunity: Position SUBE as an ally for everyday savings. Economic benefits are the main adoption driver: without incentives, SUBE loses appeal against wallets. UX opportunity: Build in visible benefits and communicate savings clearly and consistently. The physical card is still a key backup when the phone runs out of battery or connection. UX opportunity: Think of the experience as hybrid, with the card and the app working together. It is seen as a functional tool, not an experience: it “works”, but it doesn’t excite. UX opportunity: Build in visible benefits and communicate savings clearly and consistently. The delayed balance creates distrust: updating every 24 hours is confusing next to wallets that show spending in real time. UX opportunity: Immediate feedback and a clear view of spending at the core of the experience. Topping up at kiosks feels outdated and costly because of surcharges and inconvenience. UX opportunity: Strengthen SUBE’s own digital channels with clear advantages over intermediaries. Red SUBE is useful but poorly understood: the discount exists and works, but people don’t always link it to SUBE. UX opportunity: Make savings visible at the moment of payment and after the trip. 03 Copy link : Quantitative research Quantitative research
A survey to measure and compare What I did I built a structured online survey with screening, behavioral and demographic questions and Likert scales from 1 to 5 , ordered from general to specific. 48 people responded, and 91.7% used the SUBE app.
Why The interview insights came from a small, exploratory sample. I needed to measure satisfaction and perceived value, and get comparable data to test the hypothesis.
What I found The survey shows an app that is easy to use, safe and reliable , but not part of everyday use: people mostly use it to check the balance and credit top-ups (72.7%), only 36.4% use it to pay for the trip and no one uses it to find SUBE points on the map. There is no rejection of its current value, but there is consensus that more benefits would increase its use (4.81 out of 5).
Results from this stage
Survey · Likert scale from 1 to 5 Overall satisfaction 4.09 / 5
Intention to keep using 4.45 / 5
If it offered more benefits, I would use it more often 4.81 / 5
Another app is more convenient 2.81 / 5
The lack of incentives affects use 2.72 / 5
The benefits it offers today are attractive 2.36 / 5
Survey · What they use the app for Pay with SUBE Digital 36.4%
See SUBE points on the map 0%
Survey · Most used way to pay or top up Multiple choice: percentages add up to more than 100%.
04 Copy link : Secondary sources Secondary sources
What reviews and searches show What I did With desk research I reviewed SUBE’s official documentation, public usage data, app store reviews and articles about digital payments. With Google Trends I compared searches about SUBE and Mercado Pago in Argentina over the 12 months before the research.
Why I wanted to add a systemic view to what people said: technical limitations, usage patterns and external factors that an interview or a survey couldn’t reach. Searches also showed which real questions came up when something failed.
What I found Reviews repeat failures after updates and the lack of channels to report them; not being able to use the app on iOS feels like exclusion. Searches show a pattern: when SUBE fails, people stop trying to fix it and start looking for alternatives . March 2025 shows a spike in “SUBE error” and “SUBE NFC”; October, a rise in “Mercado Pago transporte” and “Mercado Pago reintegro”.
Results from this stage
Google Trends · Week of October 19–25, 2025 (interest from 0 to 100) “mercado pago + reintegro” 70 / 100
“mercado pago + transporte público” 96 / 100
Synthesis
Seven axes and a breaking point What I did I triangulated the three sources across seven axes of analysis . For each axis I crossed what came out of the interviews, the survey and the desk research, and summarized it in a triangulated finding .
Why Each method showed one part: what people say, what they do and what they search for when the experience gets difficult. Crossing them made it possible to separate isolated perceptions from consistent patterns, and avoid drawing conclusions from a single sample.
What I found The central finding: the experience works in everyday use and breaks down in error handling , when there is no feedback, support or time to wait. The problem is experiential and communicational, as well as technological: SUBE is seen as a system you have to learn to “make work”.
View the seven axes Triangulated findings
Functionality vs. value experience: the app is functional and reliable, but lacks a distinctive value proposition.Benefits as an adoption driver: added value is the main opportunity to increase use, preference and engagement.Convenience, friction and habits: adoption depends on existing habits and perceived friction more than on usability problems.Trust, balance and predictability: stated trust coexists with a need for more transparency and immediate feedback about money.Error handling and critical contexts: the experience breaks down when something fails and there is no time to wait or alternative.Public service and accessibility: technical restrictions, such as NFC and iOS, clash with SUBE’s role as a universal service.System evolution and stability: updates are met with distrust when they affect essential functions. Strategy
From the journey map to three questions What I did I built a journey map of the daily trip in four moments: the need to travel, trying to use the app, comparing alternatives and deciding how to top up. I marked emotions and opportunities in each one and wrote three How Might We questions .
Why The goal was to bring the findings into concrete moments of the trip, to see when frustration, comparison with other apps and loss of relevance showed up.
What I found The lowest point of the journey is trying to use the app : that’s where the SUBE experience ends and the search for alternatives begins. Friction shows up at critical moments, when clear feedback, anticipation and visible benefits are missing.
View the three How Might We questions How Might We
Functionality and value experience: how might we turn a functional tool into an experience that conveys control, clarity and trust, especially in critical contexts?Support at critical moments: how might we support people at critical moments of the trip without them having to leave the app to look for solutions?Economic value narrative: how might we communicate the economic impact of using SUBE so its value is felt without comparing it with other wallets? View the journey map ⤢
Design
Three design proposals Use the arrows above to move between proposals
What I did I redesigned three screens of the app based on the How Might We questions: the balance check, the home screen and the activity screen.
Why The three proposals aim to convey control, provide support at critical moments without leaving the app and show the economic value of using SUBE.
Next steps
Recommendations and next steps What I did I proposed four lines of work to continue: perceived-value tests with usability testing and post-use interviews; visual hierarchy and timing tests for the contextual messages; A/B validation of microcopy and CTAs in critical states; and UX metrics such as fewer trips with a negative balance, more preventive top-ups and fewer repeated balance checks.