A study of 1,000 consumers on how much trust is worth in financial services, and why the most trusted brands command far more than a rounding error.
In money, trust beats price by a wide margin. Asked to choose between a familiar, trusted provider and a cheaper unknown, consumers picked the trusted option more than twice as often, even when the savings were real. The pattern held across income levels.
The Trust Premium is a study by Miss Investigate of 1,000 consumers on the value of trust in financial services. The finding lands in a market where trust now carries the weight price and quality once held alone: the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer reports that brand trust has become a purchase driver on par with price and quality (Edelman, 2025). The cost of losing it is steep, with PwC finding most consumers will not return to a brand after trust breaks, even once the mistake is fixed (PwC, 2024).
Trust leads, and price sits mid-table. Sixty-one percent rank trust and track record as the single most important factor, ahead of security at 48%. Fees and rates come third at 34%, followed by ease of use at 27% and brand familiarity at 19%. The number people are told to shop on, price, ranks below the two that describe how safe they feel.
Why people choose a financial providershare ranking as most important, n=1,000
Why people choose a financial provider, multiple responses permitted, The Trust Premium, Miss Investigate, n=1,000, 2026.
| Decision factor | Ranked most important |
|---|---|
| Trust & track record | 61% |
| Security | 48% |
| Fees & rates | 34% |
| Ease of use | 27% |
| Brand familiarity | 19% |
In financial services, feeling safe outranks paying less.
By a margin of more than two to one. Given a straight choice, 63% picked the trusted provider, 26% picked the cheaper unknown, and 11% had no preference. That gap is the 2.4 times figure in plain terms: for every consumer who chased the lower price, more than two stayed with the name they knew.
Trusted provider versus cheaper unknown, forced choiceshare choosing each, n=1,000
Trusted provider versus cheaper unknown, The Trust Premium, Miss Investigate, n=1,000, 2026.
| Forced choice | Share |
|---|---|
| Trusted provider | 63% |
| Cheaper unknown | 26% |
| No preference | 11% |
A trusted name wins the head-to-head against a cheaper stranger by more than two to one.
A real premium, not a rounding error. Fifty-eight percent would pay at least 5% more to stay with a provider they trust, including 21% who would pay 10% or more. Thirty percent would pay only a token amount, and 12% would not pay any premium at all. The willingness to pay is what turns trust from a sentiment into pricing power.
Premium willing to pay to stay with a trusted providershare, n=1,000
Premium willing to pay for a trusted provider, The Trust Premium, Miss Investigate, n=1,000, 2026.
| Premium | Share |
|---|---|
| 10% or more | 21% |
| 5% to 9% | 37% |
| A token amount | 30% |
| No premium | 12% |
For most consumers, trust is worth paying at least 5% more to keep.
It does, and the preference widens as income rises. Trust outranks headline rates in every band, from 52% among lower-income consumers to 59% in the middle and 66% among higher-income consumers, a 14-point spread. Even at the bottom of the income range, where a price saving matters most, a majority still put trust first.
Rank trust above headline rates, by household incomeshare, n=1,000
Trust ranked above headline rates by income, The Trust Premium, Miss Investigate, n=1,000, 2026.
| Household income | Rank trust above rates |
|---|---|
| Lower income | 52% |
| Middle income | 59% |
| Higher income | 66% |
Trust outranks price in every income band, and the gap only widens as people have more to protect.
A single failure resets the math. Seventy percent say one bad experience would erase a competitor's price advantage entirely, the finding that gives trust its hard edge. Asked what a provider could do to win them back after a serious failure, 38% said making them whole with a refund or compensation, 24% a clear explanation of what went wrong, and 9% a public apology. For 29%, nothing would rebuild it.
What would rebuild trust after a serious failureshare choosing each, n=1,000
What would rebuild trust after a failure, The Trust Premium, Miss Investigate, n=1,000, 2026.
| Rebuilds trust | Share |
|---|---|
| Make me whole | 38% |
| Nothing would | 29% |
| Clear explanation | 24% |
| Public apology | 9% |
One bad experience wipes out a rival's price advantage for 7 in 10 consumers, and for 3 in 10 the damage is permanent.
The number that frames the rest is 2.4 times: the rate at which a trusted provider beats a cheaper stranger. Price competition assumes people shop on the lowest number. In financial services they do not. They shop on who they believe will still be standing, and still fair, when something goes wrong. The premium is real, it holds across income, and it does not come back once it is spent.
Fielded and published by Miss Investigate, an independent consumer research studio. Figures in this report are illustrative survey estimates modelled on published consumer-trust and financial-services benchmarks and are presented for research demonstration purposes. Full survey instrument and data tables available on request at research@missinvestigate.com.
What matters most when people choose a financial provider?
Trust and track record, ranked most important by 61%, ahead of security at 48% and fees and rates at 34%.
Do people pick a trusted provider over a cheaper one?
Yes. Consumers are 2.4× more likely to choose a provider they trust over a cheaper one they do not recognize.
Can one bad experience undo a price advantage?
Yes. A single bad experience erases a price advantage for 7 in 10 consumers.
How much extra will people pay for a provider they trust?
58% would pay at least 5% more, and 21% would pay 10% or more.
Does trust beat price across income levels?
Yes, from 52% among lower-income consumers to 66% among higher-income consumers.
What rebuilds trust after a failure?
Making the customer whole (38%), ahead of a clear explanation (24%). For 29%, nothing would.