top of page

Anjanesh Sharma

Mitigating Churn Risk During a Mandatory Platform Migration

Diagnosing functional resistance during a major app overhaul and stabilizing adoption among high-value traders.

Project Overview

Role

Senior UX Researcher

Timeline

Nov 2023 

Methods

Usability Testing, Behavioral Analysis, Sentiment Review, Cohort Segmentation

Outcome

Identified high churn risk (50% intent) and prioritized critical parity fixes to stabilize migration

Business Context

A redesigned version of the trading app (v5.0) was launched to modernize the interface and align with evolving design standards.

While adoption was expected to improve engagement, migration patterns revealed concern:

  • ~80% of users tried v5.0

  • ~58% reverted back to legacy v3.0

  • ~50% indicated they would consider switching platforms if v3.0 was discontinued

    Migration Upstox

The risk was highest among:

  • High ARPU users

  • F&O (derivatives) traders

This was not aesthetic dissatisfaction. It was potential revenue leakage during forced migration.

The business needed clarity:

  • Was resistance emotional (habit)?

  • Or functional (workflow degradation)?

  • Which friction points were critical vs temporary adaptation pain?

The Strategic Question

Are users resisting change or are we breaking performance-critical workflows?

The Strategic Context: A High-Stakes Upgrade

Upstox initiated a strategic migration from its Legacy App (3.0) to a modernized architecture (5.0). While the new app was cleaner and faster on paper, adoption metrics were alarming:

  • ~58% of users switched back to the legacy app after trying the new one.

  • Adoption was lowest among our most valuable segment: High ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) and F&O traders.

The business viewed this as "Change Resistance." My research re-framed it as "Operational Risk."

Research Approach

To isolate structural friction from change fatigue

  • Conducted usability testing on high-frequency workflows

  • Analyzed sentiment across feedback channels

  • Segmented responses by trading intensity and revenue contribution

  • Compared v3.0 and v5.0 task flows for execution efficiency

This allowed us to map breakpoints across trading-critical journeys.

The Risk Model: Revenue at Stake

My most critical finding wasn't about usability; it was about retention. Sentiment analysis and cohort breakdown revealed a significant migration risk: approximately 1 in 2 users indicated they would consider switching if the legacy platform was deprecated.

 

"If the Legacy App (3.0) is discontinued, 1 out of 2 users are at risk of switching platforms."

This wasn't just dissatisfaction; it was a threat to the business model. The resistance was highest among high-frequency traders who generate the bulk of brokerage revenue.

Key Insight 1: Muscle Memory is a Performance Metric

High-frequency traders & Legacy users had built subconscious navigation patterns over years.

  • Legacy users had built subconscious navigation patterns over years.

In v5.0:

  • Core actions were relocated

  • Scroll depth increased

  • Order segregation changed

  • Execution paths required additional steps

Although system performance improved, traders perceived the app as “slower.”

Why?

  • 1-second habitual clicks became 3-second conscious searches.

  • In performance-driven environments, disrupted muscle memory is interpreted as execution lag.

Key Insight 2: The "Density vs. Minimalism" Trade-off

The design team optimized for Modern Minimalism (whitespace, large fonts). The traders optimized for Data Density (information per pixel).

My analysis showed that the "Clean UI" actually reduced performance:

  • Vertical Scanning Broken: Users could see fewer orders per screen, forcing them to scroll more.

  • Hidden Context: Critical decision-making data (like "Add to Watchlist" vs. "Follow") was buried under clicks.

  • Strategic Misalignment: We were designing for viewing, but they were designing for executing.

migration1.png

The "Modern" redesign reduced data density, forcing high-frequency traders to scroll more to access the same market information.

Strategic Recommendations: The Parity Roadmap

To save the migration, I argued we had to pause "New Features" and focus entirely on "Workflow Parity."

  1. Restore Performance Parity
    Action: Re-engineer the "Order Entry" flows to match the legacy interaction model (clicks-to-execute).
    Detail: Segregate Open vs. Closed positions and restore one-tap depth access. 

  2. ​Reinstate Visual Efficiency
    Action: Introduce "Compact Mode" and Font Size controls.
    Detail: Allow users to override the "Modern" whitespace to restore the high-density view required for rapid scanning.

  3. ​The "Bridge" Strategy (FTUE)
    Action: Map 3.0 features to 5.0 equivalents explicitly during onboarding.
    Detail: Launch a targeted "Migration Walkthrough" specifically for legacy users to re-train their muscle memory on new locations for critical tools (GTT, Basket Orders).

The Impact: Stabilizing Migration Risk

This research shifted the organization's priority from "Forcing Adoption" to "Earning Trust."

  • Roadmap Pivot: The "Legacy Sunset" timeline was extended to allow for the implementation of Density and Dark Mode fixes.

  • Revenue Defense: By prioritizing the needs of the F&O cohort, we mitigated the risk of mass migration to competitors like Zerodha.

This enabled a phased migration approach rather than forced deprecation, reducing backlash while critical parity fixes were implemented.

Reflection

In expert domains, familiarity is part of performance. Migration strategies must prioritize workflow continuity before visual modernization.

bottom of page