11:FS

Name: 11:FS
Brand: 11:FS

11:FS is a financial-services firm that provides a subscription UX research and competitor benchmarking library (11:FS Pulse), specialist consulting and venture-style delivery services, and a content program of reports and podcasts to support market visibility and research workflows.

Est 2016|Raised $72.4M|37 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 58K|Web traffic 23K|FTEs 280

MarketsCompetitor Analysis User Research

01Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | 11:FS Pulse (vendor site) | FinTech Insights (vendor site) | Mobbin (summarized) | |--------|---------------|----------------|----------------| | Starting Price | Not publicly listed (demo-led subscription) | Not clearly stated (demo-led implied) | Third-party summaries cite free and paid tiers (general UI library, not FS-specific) | | Recommended For | Banks and fintechs needing financial-services-specific journey benchmarking and analyst scoring | Teams seeking an alternative financial-services benchmarking platform that emphasizes coverage and workflow tooling | Designers needing cross-industry UI references quickly | | Key Strength | Financial-services focus, large journey library, published scoring methodology | Competitor claims broader coverage and workflow-oriented tooling | Breadth across many apps and UI patterns; cross-industry inspiration | | Key Weakness | Limited independent reviews; unclear public pricing; limited public security/compliance documentation | Competitor marketing content is vendor-provided and requires validation through trials or references | Not specialized for regulated financial-services edge cases or region-specific flows | - Direct competitors and key differentiators - FinTech Insights positions itself as a feature-differentiated competitor and claims different licensing approaches; some competitor claims conflict with Pulse terms and should be validated directly. - Generalist UX libraries (Mobbin, Page Flows, Refero) are often cheaper and easier to adopt but are not tailored to regulated financial-services benchmarking. - Feature comparison: areas of relative strength and weakness - Areas of relative strength - Financial-services-focused journey coverage, breadth across brands and geographies, and an explicit scoring rubric with published weightings. - Availability of structured competitor intelligence artifacts (journeys, brand pages, aggregated app-store review summaries). - Areas of concern or relative weakness - Limited independent product reviews and public references. - Public pricing transparency is limited. - Public security and compliance documentation is not prominent. - Pricing comparison: value proposition vs alternatives - The product appears to compete on sector specialization and claimed efficiency gains rather than on price alone. Teams not focused on financial services may find better ROI from more generalist, lower-cost libraries. - Market share and adoption trends - No reliable market share data was identified. There is evidence of visibility in UK financial-services circles, but this visibility should not be interpreted as market share.

01Competitive Landscape

Aspect	11:FS Pulse (vendor site)	FinTech Insights (vendor site)	Mobbin (summarized)
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (demo-led subscription)	Not clearly stated (demo-led implied)	Third-party summaries cite free and paid tiers (general UI library, not FS-specific)
Recommended For	Banks and fintechs needing financial-services-specific journey benchmarking and analyst scoring	Teams seeking an alternative financial-services benchmarking platform that emphasizes coverage and workflow tooling	Designers needing cross-industry UI references quickly
Key Strength	Financial-services focus, large journey library, published scoring methodology	Competitor claims broader coverage and workflow-oriented tooling	Breadth across many apps and UI patterns; cross-industry inspiration
Key Weakness	Limited independent reviews; unclear public pricing; limited public security/compliance documentation	Competitor marketing content is vendor-provided and requires validation through trials or references	Not specialized for regulated financial-services edge cases or region-specific flows

Direct competitors and key differentiators
- FinTech Insights positions itself as a feature-differentiated competitor and claims different licensing approaches; some competitor claims conflict with Pulse terms and should be validated directly.
- Generalist UX libraries (Mobbin, Page Flows, Refero) are often cheaper and easier to adopt but are not tailored to regulated financial-services benchmarking.
Feature comparison: areas of relative strength and weakness
- Areas of relative strength
  - Financial-services-focused journey coverage, breadth across brands and geographies, and an explicit scoring rubric with published weightings.
  - Availability of structured competitor intelligence artifacts (journeys, brand pages, aggregated app-store review summaries).
- Areas of concern or relative weakness
  - Limited independent product reviews and public references.
  - Public pricing transparency is limited.
  - Public security and compliance documentation is not prominent.
Pricing comparison: value proposition vs alternatives
- The product appears to compete on sector specialization and claimed efficiency gains rather than on price alone. Teams not focused on financial services may find better ROI from more generalist, lower-cost libraries.
Market share and adoption trends
- No reliable market share data was identified. There is evidence of visibility in UK financial-services circles, but this visibility should not be interpreted as market share.

Aspect

11:FS Pulse (vendor site)

FinTech Insights (vendor site)

Mobbin (summarized)

Starting Price

Not publicly listed (demo-led subscription)

Not clearly stated (demo-led implied)

Third-party summaries cite free and paid tiers (general UI library, not FS-specific)

Recommended For

Banks and fintechs needing financial-services-specific journey benchmarking and analyst scoring

Teams seeking an alternative financial-services benchmarking platform that emphasizes coverage and workflow tooling

Designers needing cross-industry UI references quickly

Key Strength

Financial-services focus, large journey library, published scoring methodology

Competitor claims broader coverage and workflow-oriented tooling

Breadth across many apps and UI patterns; cross-industry inspiration

Key Weakness

Limited independent reviews; unclear public pricing; limited public security/compliance documentation

Competitor marketing content is vendor-provided and requires validation through trials or references

Not specialized for regulated financial-services edge cases or region-specific flows