The introduction of the Apple iPad in 2010 seemed to herald the arrival of a new banking channel. Tablets married the touch-screen convenience of smartphones with larger screens, which created new opportunities for money management and data visualization. Strong consumer adoption of the device confirmed that it was a major new access point. Today, tablet owners mobile bank at 120% the rate of all consumers. So why has innovation and development slowed to a crawl in tablet banking? This report will take a close look at how consumers use tablets in managing their financial lives and why many institutions have responded by delivering identical experiences on tablets and smartphones. It will explore the large role that browsers play in tablet banking and how institutions can drive deeper customer engagement by creating better bridges between online and mobile banking.

Key questions discussed in this report:

  • What does current consumer adoption of tablets look like?
  • For what banking activities do consumers turn to the tablet first?
  • Why has bank support for tablets not grown as quickly as that for smartphones?
  • How does consumer use of tablets for banking differ from that of smartphones?
  • Is account access through tablet browsers considered mobile banking or online banking?
  • Are native mobile banking apps for tablets worth the investment?

Companies Mentioned: Apple, Bank of America, BBVA Compass, Citibank, Fifth Third Bank, Google, PNC, Wells Fargo


The consumer data in this report is based on information collected from several Javelin surveys that targeted populations representative of the overall U.S. population in proportions of gender, age and income:

  • A random-sample panel of 3,000 respondents collected online during September 2015. The overall margin of sampling error is +1.79 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. 
  • A random-sample panel of 3,195 consumers with mobile phones or smartphones from June to July 2015. The overall margin of sampling error is +1.73 percentage points at the 95% confidence level
  • A random-sample panel of 10,639 respondents collected online in May 2016. The overall margin of error is +0.95 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.