Methodology
Each brand was evaluated across three weighted dimensions. Every dimension contains five sub-criteria mapped to the 5C Performance Framework. Scores are composited, adjusted for promise alignment, and gated by the Master Test.
Visual Design & UI
35%Imagery
30%Copy & Tone
35%The Master Test
Could this page belong to another bank? If yes, it fails.
Leading4.5-5.0
Strong3.5-4.4
Average2.5-3.4
Below Avg1.5-2.4
Comparative Ranking
All 9 brands ranked by composite score (1-5 scale)
Quantified Scoring Matrix
Scores incorporate Promise Alignment modifier (±0.5) and Master Test gate
| Brand | Visual (35%) | Imagery (30%) | Copy (35%) | Final | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apple | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.6 | 5.0 | Leading |
Patagonia | 3.4 | 4.8 | 4.6 | 4.7 | Leading |
DBS | 4.2 | 3.6 | 4.6 | 4.6 | Leading |
JP Morgan | 4.0 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 3.8 | Strong |
BBVA | 3.2 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 3.4 | Average |
ING | 3.6 | 2.4 | 3.6 | 2.9 | Average |
HSBC | 3.0 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 2.9 | Average |
Standard Bank Group | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 2.9 | Average |
Citi | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 2.4 | Below Avg |
Dimension Breakdown
Score comparison across all three weighted dimensions (1-5 scale)
Visual Design & UI(35% weight)
Apple
4.8
DBS
4.2
JP Morgan
4.0
ING
3.6
Patagonia
3.4
BBVA
3.2
HSBC
3.0
Citi
2.6
Standard Bank Group
2.6
Imagery(30% weight)
Apple
4.8
Patagonia
4.8
DBS
3.6
BBVA
2.8
HSBC
2.8
JP Morgan
2.8
Standard Bank Group
2.6
ING
2.4
Citi
2.2
Copy & Tone(35% weight)
DBS
4.6
Apple
4.6
Patagonia
4.6
JP Morgan
3.8
BBVA
3.6
ING
3.6
HSBC
3.6
Standard Bank Group
2.8
Citi
2.6