# Exatom
> Form and checkout analytics with an AI CRO assistant. Exatom shows where prospects and buyers abandon your forms and checkouts, field by field, what that costs you, and fixes it with Smart Nudges and Autofixes that go live without a developer. Cookieless, GDPR compliant, ISO 27001 certified.
- Free plan, forever: field-level drop-off, completion rate and the conversion value the form is missing.
- Growth from €79 a month adds session replay, Smart Nudges and Eureka, the AI CRO assistant.
- Contact: hello@exatom.io · Koning Boudewijnlaan 20A, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
## English
### 10 Most seen problems that cause bad webforms | Exatom
Source: https://exatom.io/blog/10-most-seen-problems-that-cause-bad-webforms/
1. [Home](https://exatom.io/)
2. [Blog](https://exatom.io/blog/)
3. 10 Most seen problems that cause bad webforms
#### 10 Most seen problems that cause bad webforms
Poorly designed webforms can lead to a number of issues such as confusion, frustration, and ultimately a loss of conversions.
**Exatom** 22 April 2026 10 min read Guides
On this page
1. Are required fields actually marked as required? 2. Do your field labels survive a five-second test? 3. When and where do error messages appear? 4. Does the format expectation match what users actually type? 5. Is the form actually built for the device most people use? 6. Does the submit button tell the user what will happen? 7. Can a stranger navigate the form without thinking? 8. Does the user know how much further they have to go? 9. Is autofill helping or actively hurting? 10. Is the form usable by people who need it to be? So where should you actually start? Frequently asked questions See what your forms look like under the same lens
TL;DR
Most webforms fail at the field, not the page. Unclear required markers, missing format hints, broken autofill, mobile keyboard mismatches, and late or hidden error messages cause the bulk of abandonment. Fix those five before redesigning anything. Layout and copy come a distant second once the field-level mechanics are right.
If you have audited more than a handful of forms, you start to see the same problems on rotation. Not exotic ones — the obvious, well-documented, fix-it-in-an-afternoon kind. They survive because nobody owns them, or because the team is busy testing button colours instead.
This is a ranked list of the ten that show up most often, why each one matters, and what to do about it. The ranking matters: not every problem is worth the same effort. [Baymard Institute’s research](https://baymard.com/research) consistently puts checkout usability problems above price, shipping, and trust as the leading drivers of cart abandonment, and the pattern holds for non-commerce forms too.
##### 1. Are required fields actually marked as required?
Required fields need an unambiguous visual marker — usually an asterisk or the word “required” in the label — and the convention should be consistent across the entire form. Marking optional fields instead, or leaving the user to discover requirements through error messages, is the most common cause of avoidable submission failures.
The fix is small, but the impact is not. When users hit a wall of red errors after pressing submit, a measurable percentage simply leave. Worse, some forms only mark requirement through error states, which means a first-time visitor learns the rules by failing first.
If your form has more optional than required fields, flip the convention: mark the optional ones with “(optional)” and let everything else be assumed required. [Nielsen Norman Group’s guidance](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/required-fields/) on this has held for over a decade and still gets ignored.
##### 2. Do your field labels survive a five-second test?
A field label should tell the user exactly what to type, in plain language, without abbreviations or internal jargon. Float labels, placeholder-only labels, and ambiguous one-word labels (“Reference”, “Code”, “ID”) all create hesitation. The test: can a stranger fill the field correctly without context?
Placeholder-only labels are the worst offender because the prompt disappears the moment a user starts typing. They look clean in mockups and fail in practice — particularly on long forms where users tab back to verify what they entered.
Use a visible label above the field, in plain English, in the user’s vocabulary. “Reference” might mean something inside your CRM; to a customer it could mean an order number, a quote ID, or nothing at all.
##### 3. When and where do error messages appear?
Error messages should fire on blur, not only on submit, and they should appear adjacent to the field that caused them — not in a banner at the top of the form. They should explain what is wrong and what to do, in that order. “Invalid input” is not an error message, it is a shrug.
The painful version is the long mobile form that validates only on submit and then sends the user scrolling through five screens hunting for the red field. By the time they find it, they have forgotten what was wrong. A measurable share of them do not come back.
Inline validation — clear, specific, and timed to the field’s blur event — fixes most of this. Avoid validating mid-typing on free-text fields, which surfaces errors before the user is finished and reads as accusatory.
From our data
Across automotive lead forms in 14 European markets, the average phone-field error rate sits at **19%** — meaning roughly one in five visitors trips over the same field. Most of these errors are format-related: country code expectations, leading zeros, separators. The form rarely tells the user which is wrong.
##### 4. Does the format expectation match what users actually type?
If a field expects a specific format — phone numbers with country codes, dates as DD/MM/YYYY, postcodes with spaces — say so before the user types, and accept reasonable variations. Forcing a user to guess between `+44` and `0044`, or between `04/05/2026` and `05/04/2026`, is unnecessary failure.
The phone field is the worst offender across every dataset we have seen. The date-of-birth field is a close second, particularly when it asks for a four-digit year but accepts two-digit input silently and then misroutes the customer to a different cohort.
Provide an inline hint below the field, accept multiple formats, and normalise on submission. The work belongs in your code, not in the user’s head.
##### 5. Is the form actually built for the device most people use?
Most commercial sites now see more than half their traffic on mobile, yet many forms are still designed desktop-first and shrunk to fit. The signs are everywhere: keyboards that show letters when a number is needed, tap targets too small for thumbs, fields that overlap the keyboard on focus, autocapitalisation on email fields.
The single highest-impact fix on most mobile forms is correct `inputmode` and `autocomplete` attributes — each one changes the keyboard the user sees, and each one shaves seconds and errors off the journey. The most useful pairings:
`inputmode="numeric"` Postcodes, card numbers, and other digit-only fields `inputmode="email"` Email fields — surfaces the @ key on mobile keyboards `autocomplete="tel"` Phone fields — lets the browser fill the saved number
A mobile form should be tested on a real mobile device, by a real person with average-size thumbs, every quarter. Emulators lie about touch behaviour.
3.2× Median field-level error rate on mobile vs. desktop, across forms we monitor. The gap is almost entirely down to keyboard and autocomplete configuration.
##### 6. Does the submit button tell the user what will happen?
“Send”, “Submit”, and “Continue” are filler words that ask the user to take it on faith. A submit button should describe the outcome of pressing it: “Book my room”, “Get my quote”, “Create my account”. The verb-plus-noun pattern reduces hesitation by removing the question of what happens next, and gives the user a clear sense of the commitment.
This is one of the cheapest changes possible and it punches above its weight. [Multiple eye-tracking studies](https://cxl.com/blog/cta-button-copy/) show users pause on generic button copy as they parse the consequence; specific copy collapses that pause to near zero.
The other underrated fix: state the post-submit expectation in microcopy under the button. “We will email your quote within two minutes” sets the right expectation and reduces post-submit anxiety.
##### 7. Can a stranger navigate the form without thinking?
The order of fields should match the order in which users naturally think about the information — typically personal details, then contact details, then anything that requires looking up. Tab order should follow visual order. Keyboard navigation should not skip fields, trap focus, or land in unpredictable places.
The classic violation is the multi-column form where tabbing moves down the left column instead of across the row. The visual flow says one thing, the keyboard says another, and users with assistive technology are punished worst.
Test the form using only a keyboard. If you cannot complete it without reaching for the mouse, neither can a meaningful share of your visitors.
“Almost every form problem worth fixing is invisible to the team that built it. Watching one real session changes that in about ninety seconds.”
##### 8. Does the user know how much further they have to go?
On forms of three steps or more, a progress indicator earns its place — it tells the user how much effort is left and reduces the urge to abandon at step two. On shorter forms, indicators add visual noise without value. The decision is binary: long enough to need one, or short enough to skip it.
The worst version is a progress bar that lies. Showing “Step 2 of 3” and then revealing a fourth step on submission is a betrayal that costs more than no indicator at all. If steps are conditional, say so up front.
For e-commerce checkouts, the strongest pattern is the labelled three-step bar — Address, Delivery, Payment — visible from step one. Users sign an implicit contract with that bar; do not break it.
##### 9. Is autofill helping or actively hurting?
Autofill is a quiet conversion lever when configured correctly and a quiet conversion killer when it is not. Browsers and password managers rely on standard `autocomplete` attribute values; if your form uses non-standard names or omits the attribute, you get random behaviour — first names landing in last-name fields, the wrong saved address chosen, silent failure.
Audit the form with the [WHATWG autocomplete reference](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/form-control-infrastructure.html#autofill) open and use the standard token for each field. Five minutes of work, immediate effect on completion time. The values you will reach for most:
`autocomplete="given-name"` First-name field `autocomplete="family-name"` Last-name field `autocomplete="email"` Email address `autocomplete="postal-code"` Postcode or ZIP `autocomplete="street-address"` Full street address in a single field
The opposite mistake is just as common: forms that disable autofill entirely on the assumption that it interferes with custom validation. It does not, and the user pays for the team’s nervousness.
##### 10. Is the form usable by people who need it to be?
Accessibility is no longer an optional polish. Under the European Accessibility Act, which became enforceable across the EU in June 2025, commercial digital services — including most forms — must meet WCAG 2.2 AA. Beyond compliance, the same fixes (contrast, labels, keyboard support, focus states) tend to lift conversion for everyone.
The most common accessibility failures on forms are insufficient label-to-input association, low contrast on placeholder text, missing focus indicators, and error messages communicated only by colour. None are hard to fix; all are easy to overlook.
Run your form through an automated checker as a baseline, then have a person test it with a screen reader. Automated tools catch about a third of issues; the rest need a human.
##### So where should you actually start?
Rank the ten by how many users each problem affects, multiplied by the friction it causes. A 19% error rate on a phone field that every visitor must fill is a bigger lever than a missing progress bar on a single-page form. Field-level analytics or session replays make this triage straightforward; without them, you are guessing.
This is where having instrumentation matters. [Field-level form analytics](https://exatom.io/form-analytics/) show which fields cause the most drop-off, retries, and corrections — meaning you can act on the worst offender first instead of redesigning the whole form on intuition.
The other half of the answer is cultural: form quality belongs to someone. If it lives in the gap between marketing, design, and engineering, none of these problems will get fixed because none of them is anyone’s job. Pick an owner.
FAQ
##### Frequently asked questions
Practical answers to the questions teams ask after running their first form audit — covering prioritisation, testing, autofill, and accessibility.
What is the single biggest cause of webform abandonment? + Field-level friction, not page-level design, drives most abandonment. Unclear required fields, missing format hints, and validation that fires too late or in the wrong place force users to guess. In our session data, two or three friction points on a single field can push abandonment past 30% on that step. Fix the fields before fixing the page. How do I know which form problem to fix first? + Rank issues by the number of users they affect multiplied by the friction each one causes. A confusing phone field that 19% of visitors trip on is a bigger lever than a missing progress bar that mildly annoys everyone. Use field-level analytics or session replays to spot the worst offender, then move to the next. Are progress indicators worth adding to short forms? + On forms with three steps or fewer, progress indicators rarely move the needle and can add visual noise. They earn their place on multi-step checkouts and applications where users genuinely need to gauge effort. If the form fits on one screen, an indicator is decoration, not utility. Does autofill always help conversion? + Only when implemented correctly. Bad autocomplete attributes cause browsers to push the wrong data into the wrong field, which is more frustrating than no autofill at all. Audit your form with autocomplete tokens that match the WHATWG spec; otherwise you are inviting silent failure that you will never see in your funnel reports. How accessible does my form actually need to be? + WCAG 2.2 AA is the practical floor for any commercial form in 2026, and it is now a legal requirement across the EU under the European Accessibility Act. Beyond compliance, the same fixes — sufficient contrast, proper labels, keyboard navigation — usually lift conversion for non-disabled users too. Should I A/B test every form change? + Test changes that involve trade-offs or judgement calls. Do not test fixes for outright bugs, accessibility failures, or violations of basic usability principles — those are not hypotheses, they are repairs. Reserve A/B testing budget for the genuinely uncertain decisions, and ship the obvious fixes immediately. GO DEEPER
##### See what your forms look like under the same lens
If this list felt familiar, you can run a free Exatom audit and find out which of the ten is hurting you most — no credit card.
[Start a free 15-day trial →](https://olympus.exatom.io/signup?locale=en&utm_source=Website&utm_medium=Blog&utm_campaign=FreeTrial)
##### Get a free demo for your own company.
- Your biggest friction points, field by field
- No obligation, no hard sell
- Talk directly to an expert
[Get a demo](https://exatom.io/demo/) Free · 30 minutes
##### More from the blog
[All articles](https://exatom.io/blog/)
[Guides Which session replay tool is right for your forms and checkout? A comparison of five tools 25 June 2026 · 8 min read](https://exatom.io/blog/session-replays-for-forms-and-checkouts/) [Guides Forms and Fields Autofill – how to do it right 21 October 2025 · 4 min read](https://exatom.io/blog/forms-and-fields-autofill-how-to-do-it-right/) [Guides UTM & Exatom 27 August 2025 · 4 min read](https://exatom.io/blog/utm-generator/)
### AI Terms | Exatom
Source: https://exatom.io/ai-terms/
#### AI Terms
These “AI Terms” apply to our features which incorporate artificial intelligence models or tools (each an “AI Feature”). These AI Features are made available to you pursuant to these AI Terms. You should carefully read through these AI Terms to understand your rights and responsibilities, as these AI Terms constitute a contract between you and us. If you do not agree to these AI Terms, do not use the AI Feature(s). If you use the AI Feature, you shall be deemed to confirm your acceptance of these AI Terms and your agreement to be a party to this binding contract. If there is any conflict between these AI Terms and the [Platform Terms and Conditions](https://exatom.io/terms-and-conditions/), then the terms of these AI Terms shall govern with respect to the AI Feature.
You agree to receive electronically all communications, agreements, and notices that we provide in connection with the Exatom Service (“Communications”), including by e-mail, text, in-app notifications, or by posting them on the Exatom website or through the Exatom Service. You agree that all Communications that we provide to you electronically satisfy any legal requirement that such communications be in writing.
We may update these AI Terms from time to time. If we do, you are free to choose whether to accept the updated terms or to stop using the AI Feature. Your continued use of the AI Feature after the update takes effect will be considered as your agreement to, and acceptance of, the revised AI Terms.
##### Use Requirements and Intellectual Property
The AI Feature may allow you to use user-interface data, data-collection data, analytics data, input or upload text, images, and other data (“Input”). Based on the Input, you may generate and receive certain output (“Output”). Your use of the AI Feature must comply with our [Platform Terms and Conditions](https://exatom.io/terms-and-conditions/), and you must not engage in activity that is harmful to you, the AI Feature, or others. You must use any Output in accordance with applicable law and subject to any third-party rights.
As between you and us, you own your Input, and we hereby assign to you any right we may have to the Output. You acknowledge and agree that due to the nature of the AI Feature, others may receive identical or similar-looking Output and that the AI Feature may generate incorrect information.
##### Privacy
Your use of the AI Feature is subject to our [Services Privacy Policy](https://exatom.io/services-privacy-policy/), which describes our collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.
The AI Feature may contain functionality or features that are contingent on access to or use of applications developed by third parties. In accordance with our Privacy Policy, we require any service providers to agree to strict data protection requirements and require them not to use Input or Output data for training artificial intelligence models or tools.
##### Feedback
You agree that any submission of ideas, suggestions, comments, questions, or other feedback (“Feedback”) relating to the AI Feature to us is at your own risk and that we have no obligations (including, without limitation, obligations of confidentiality) with respect to such Feedback. We may use, copy, display, publish, modify, remove, publicly perform, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, disclose, and/or otherwise use Feedback in any manner without any obligation, royalty, or restriction based on intellectual property rights or otherwise. Nothing in these AI Terms limits our right to independently use, develop, evaluate, or market products or services, whether incorporating Feedback or otherwise.
##### No Representations or Warranties
All AI features, support, and additional services are provided “as is” and we, our subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, service providers, and licensors, and our and their respective officers, employees, agents and successors expressly disclaim any and all warranties and representations of any kind, including any warranty of non-infringement, title, fitness for a particular purpose, functionality or merchantability, whether express, implied or statutory. Without limiting our express obligations in these terms, we do not warrant that your use of the AI feature will be uninterrupted or error-free, that we will review your data (including output) for accuracy, or that we will preserve or maintain your data without loss. You understand that use of the AI feature necessarily involves transmission of your data over networks that we do not own, operate or control, and we are not responsible for any of your data lost, altered, intercepted, or stored across such networks. We cannot guarantee that our security procedures will be error-free, that transmissions of your data will always be secure, or that unauthorised third parties will never be able to defeat our security measures or those of our third-party service providers. We will not be liable for delays, interruptions, service failures, or other problems inherent in the use of the internet and electronic communications or other systems outside our reasonable control. You may have other statutory rights, but the duration of statutory required warranties, if any, will be limited to the shortest period permitted by law.
##### Indemnification
You agree to indemnify and hold us, our subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, officers, agents, employees, service providers, and other partners harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, costs, liabilities, damages (actual and consequential), penalties, fines, losses, and expenses (including legal and other professional fees) arising out of, relating to, or resulting from: (i) your use of the AI Feature, including your subsequent use of any Output from the AI Feature; (ii) your breach of these AI Terms; or (iii) your violation of any applicable law, rules, or regulations. In the event of such a claim, we will endeavour to provide notice of the claim, suit, or action to the contact information we have for the account, provided that any failure to deliver such notice to you shall not eliminate or reduce your indemnification obligation hereunder. You agree that the provisions in this section will survive any termination of your account, these AI Terms, your access to the AI Feature, or your access to the Exatom Service.
##### Suspension and Termination
We reserve the right to suspend or cease offering or supporting all or part of any AI feature at any time and for any reason, to some or all users. Subject to the requirements of applicable law, we may limit, suspend, or terminate your use of any AI feature at any time without notice and for any reason, including but not limited to, if you breach these AI Terms, violate the [Platform Terms and Conditions](https://exatom.io/terms-and-conditions/), or if your Exatom account is suspended, deactivated, or closed by us or you.
##### EXATOM’s coordinates
**EXATOM BV**
Koning Boudewijnlaan 20A
3500 Hasselt
Belgium
[privacy@exatom.io](mailto:privacy@exatom.io?subject=AI%20Terms)
##### Date
July 11th, 2025
### API: What is it and how can it be used? | Exatom
Source: https://exatom.io/blog/api-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-used/
1. [Home](https://exatom.io/)
2. [Blog](https://exatom.io/blog/)
3. API: What is it and how can it be used?
#### API: What is it and how can it be used?
An API, also known as Application Program Interface, is a set of tools and protocols for building software applications.
**Exatom** 6 April 2022 5 min read Guides
On this page
Let’s talk about web API’s. What are they exactly? Different types of APIs REST GraphQL SOAP For what can APIs be used? How does Exatom use APIs for their software? Advantages of API
##### Let’s talk about web API’s. What are they exactly?
Nowadays, API’s are commonly used by software developers. In this blog, we will dive deeper into the different types of API’s, the most important advantages and how Exatom uses them in their business.
An API, also known as Application Program Interface, is a set of tools and protocols for building software applications. In other words: an API outlines how multiple pieces of software components communicate with each other. It’s a guideline for the communication process between two or more entities, whichever programming language they use.
APIs have gained popularity in the last decade because they allowed businesses to open up their data, functionality, and services to external vendors or even make them publicly available. Today, the creation or usage of APIs is a commodity; almost all popular web applications like LinkedIn, Twitter and DuckDuckGo would not exist without them.
##### Different types of APIs
In the early days of the internet, most pages were static. With its increasing popularity, there was a need for more dynamic website functions like an account portal, the ability for online payments and more. Since 2010, the interest in using APIs has gained popularity as it allowed developers and marketers to create online user experiences that already existed offline.
Since then, we have seen a wide range of technical designs and implementations that contributed to the APIs as we know them today. Let’s dive deeper into the three most popular types of APIs and how they differ from each other.
##### REST
Today’s most popular APIs are RESTful APIs. Compared to other types, this one is easier to use, more flexible and has an extensive toolchain and community. The RESTful API is so popular nowadays because of its request and response (input and output) format. Almost all REStful APIs use JSON notation for their requests and responses, those are easy to read and construct in textual format. The format is not limited to JSON only. Also XML, YAML and other types that satisfy the architecture needs can be formatted.
**Example given:**
This is a JSON example to create an account for Tim
`POST /account { "name": "Tim B. Lee", "email": "tim.bl@example.io" }`
As you can see, this type of API is very straightforward to read. Moreover, all modern programming and scripting languages widely support the JSON format, making it a breeze to create or consume restful APIs.
##### GraphQL
In 2016, GraphQL formed after the rise of restful APIs due to the need of customizing output through a uniform Query Language. Due to its strong type and relationship system, GraphQL makes it easy to only receive the data which is needed. Looking at the JSON example given earlier, this API makes it possible to filter all products Tim has ordered last year, without receiving other account information. Compared to other types of APIs, GraphQL is more complex, but can deliver the exact needed data without under or over fetching data.
**Example given:**
A GraphQL example for retrieving all Tim’s orders
`{ account(id: ) { orders (after: "2021-01-01") { edges { node { product { name, price, image, url } }, cursor } } } }`
##### SOAP
The Simple Object Access Protocol, also known as SOAP, can be seen as the predecessor of REST. Its fundamentals lie primarily in the development of private enterprise APIs, as SOAP provides rigid language constructs to make sure that the input data is correct, according to the API’s specifications. In addition to that, SOAP also offers out of the box error-handling, retry, security and encryption capabilities.
Nowadays, SOAP APIs are still used, but because of their complex setup and the fact that they only allow XML as its less readable communication format, using SOAP never gained such popularity in web application development as REST and GraphQL did.
**Example given:**
A SOAP example to create an account for Tim
](http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope%22%5C%3E) Tim B. Lee
When comparing different types of APIs, their formats and the functionalities they offer, each API offers benefits over another. It really depends on the needs of the API you need to build. It’s not uncommon for a company to develop its primary services in REST and offer a few services based on GraphQL.
##### For what can APIs be used?
There are many advantages to creating an API. Think about the separation of concerns, splitting up a large piece of business logic into smaller pieces, making internal services available to the public, so on and so for forth.
For example, at Exatom we use an API between our user interface and our back-end database, where we store all forms and insights. The API abstracts the concerns and functionality of storing data, and how all the insights can be visualized in our user interface. Both services can change independently, but the API connects them and makes it possible to communicate and get things done.
That same API is used by our user interface and other Exatom applications, allowing us to connect services and events like account creation to other actions to complete the setup.
##### How does Exatom use APIs for their software?
There are many pieces that are API driven at Exatom. From account creation, generating the tags for your website, anonymously receiving the form analytics data and visualizing the data in our UI, it’s all API driven!
As we already had our REST API available, creating our Google Data Studio integration was a breeze. As it’s the most popular type of API, all the main components were one-on-one compatible: authentication and security, data-transfer protocol, in- and output formats, et cetera.
##### Advantages of API
Data is readily available, and new services and applications are all created using APIs. We live in an ecosystem with an API for almost everything, from weather services to science and even APIs that help us gain insights on Covid-19.
The advantage of living within an API driven era is that we now have platforms that can connect them or can be used to create your API. RapidAPI, Make, Zapier and others are all great resources to explore and learn more about APIs.
Whilst it does take a bit more planning and development, having an API nowadays provides more benefits than drawbacks, certainly when you want others to use it. In 2010, Apple trademarked the phrase ‘There is an app for that’. Today we can probably reword that to ‘There is an API for that’.
Do you want to know more about how we use APIs to make the best analysis of your forms? [Send us a message](https://exatom.io/contact/). We love to connect with you!
Team Exatom
##### Get a free demo for your own company.
- Your biggest friction points, field by field
- No obligation, no hard sell
- Talk directly to an expert
[Get a demo](https://exatom.io/demo/) Free · 30 minutes
##### More from the blog
[All articles](https://exatom.io/blog/)
[Guides Which session replay tool is right for your forms and checkout? A comparison of five tools 25 June 2026 · 8 min read](https://exatom.io/blog/session-replays-for-forms-and-checkouts/) [Guides 10 Most seen problems that cause bad webforms 22 April 2026 · 10 min read](https://exatom.io/blog/10-most-seen-problems-that-cause-bad-webforms/) [Guides Forms and Fields Autofill – how to do it right 21 October 2025 · 4 min read](https://exatom.io/blog/forms-and-fields-autofill-how-to-do-it-right/)
### About Exatom: the team behind better forms and checkouts
Source: https://exatom.io/about/
About Exatom
#### We make forms and checkouts perform better.
Most of the attention in digital marketing goes to the journey up to the form. The last step, where a prospect or buyer actually converts, is where revenue is lost. That step is what Exatom is built for.
[Start free plan](https://olympus.exatom.io/signup?utm_source=Website&utm_medium=Website&utm_campaign=FreePlan)
[Get a demo](https://exatom.io/demo/)
**5+** years of Exatom
**+23%** average increase in conversion for our customers
**3M+** sessions tracked every month
**27001** ISO certified, cookieless and GDPR compliant
- Stephan van den Bremer
- Michaël Vaes
- Filip Lauweres
- Kurt Briers
- Bart de Fluiter
- Oliver Bath
- Matthieu Medrinal
- Sander Heymans
- Marcelo Bem
- Olger van de Vliet
Our story
##### Why we built Exatom
As a digital marketer you want to be measurably successful. For that, well-performing forms and checkouts are indispensable. Yet analytics tools show the journey before and after a form and miss what happens between the fields.
We know how frustrating it is to have forms that do not convert well. That is why we, as founders, used more than 35 years of digital marketing experience to build a platform that shows where prospects and buyers abandon, why they do, and how to fix it without a developer.
Privacy by design: Exatom works without cookies and is GDPR compliant.
The team in the Algarve, October 2026
Our story so far
##### From an idea in lockdown to five years of Exatom
1. 2020
###### The idea
Exatom starts as an idea during the pandemic: forms are where conversions are won or lost, and analytics tools do not look inside them. The founders build the company without meeting face to face.
2. 2021
###### The platform goes live
After a year of building with beta customers, the cookieless platform goes live on 1 July 2021.
3. 2022
###### First time on stage
Exatom presents itself to the market at Emerce Conversion in April.
4. 2023
###### Partners and DMEXCO
Conversion agency ClickValue becomes a partner in June. In September Exatom pitches in the start-up village at DMEXCO in Cologne.
5. 2024
###### From insight to action
Yellowgrape joins as a partner in February. Smart tooltips launch in March: messages beside a field that help visitors complete a form, set up without a developer. They grow into today's Smart Nudges.
6. 2025
###### ISO 27001
Exatom is certified for ISO 27001:2022.
7. 2026
###### Five years
Benchmark reports on hotel booking forms and test-drive request forms in the UK and France. In October the whole team meets in the Algarve to mark five years and plan the next phase.
The team
##### The people behind Exatom
A small team spread over four countries, close to its customers. You meet the same people in a demo, in onboarding and in support.
- Netherlands
**Stephan van den Bremer** Co-founder and CEO
- Belgium
**Michaël Vaes** Co-founder and CTO
- Belgium
**Filip Lauweres** Co-founder and Chief of Staff
- Belgium
**Kurt Briers** Co-founder
- Netherlands
**Bart de Fluiter** Growth Lead
- Portugal
**Oliver Bath** International Sales
- France
**Matthieu Medrinal** Sales France
- Belgium
**Sander Heymans** Customer Success
- Portugal
**Marcelo Bem** Development
- Netherlands
**Olger van de Vliet** Marketing and design
Offsite 2026
##### Five years of Exatom, two days in the Algarve
Once a year the whole team gets together. In October 2026 that was the Algarve: two days on the product and the plans for the next phase, with padel and dinner in between.
Brands we work for
##### Stay secure and compliant
Exatom is **ISO 27001 certified**. Built with security and privacy at its core, our platform works without cookies and does not collect any personal data. This ensures full compliance.
ISO 27001 No cookies No personal data
[Learn more](https://exatom.io/data-journey/)
##### Built for teams that can't afford an abandoned form.
[Read G2 reviews](https://www.g2.com/products/exatom/reviews)
Ease of setup
From insight to action
“Using the tools from Exatom helped us to first understand the customers’ behaviour and improve the UX and CX of several forms.”
Jean-Philippe Pottier Manager Digital Platforms, Kia Germany
“By zeroing into specific fields, we can ensure that our forms are optimised down to minor details missed in our UX research process.”
Jesse Lee Manager CRM & Customer Analytics EMEA, Brooks Running
“With Exatom Analytics, we break down form completion entirely into smaller KPIs per field.”
Jochen Fischer Head of Media, Digital Experience & CRM, Hyundai Motor Europe
### Autofill: a blessing or a curse for your webform? | Exatom
Source: https://exatom.io/blog/autofill-a-blessing-or-a-curse-for-your-webform/
1. [Home](https://exatom.io/)
2. [Blog](https://exatom.io/blog/)
3. Autofill: a blessing or a curse for your webform?
#### Autofill: a blessing or a curse for your webform?
Autofill for online forms: a blessing or a curse? Is your webform benefitting from autofill and creates a fast and smooth form completion?
**Exatom** 22 September 2021 3 min read Guides
On this page
What is autofill? How does it work? Is it improving your webform completion rate? What is your autofill and error-rate?
##### What is autofill?
Autofill is a very popular browser function that helps a user filling in a form with less effort, as it automatically fills in web form fields with stored data, like first name, last name, email, phone number, etc. It can even be used for credit card details and passwords. Autofill is often confused with autocomplete, but some will say it is only semantics. Autocomplete is typically related to a single form field (i.e. when you start typing your address in an address field, it automatically completes your address without typing everything) , whereas autofill completes multiple fields of an online form at once.
##### How does it work?
Autofill is enabled by default and there are basically two ways to embrace it. The first and most robust way is when a web developer has added standard **autocomplete** attributes to the typical form fields for personal information. Like `autocomplete="address-line1"` for (obviously) the first address line. [Autocomplete attributes](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/form-control-infrastructure.html#autofill) are a way for you to control how the browser should autofill a given form field. The second way is not specifying the autocomplete attributes, this means that the browser will guess (based on the name and type) if the form field is eligible for autofill or not. In some cases this could lead to unexpected results, often not detected and leading to silent data issues.
An important side-note is that today most browsers ignore turning off autofill with `autocomplete="off"`. This is due to the fact that many websites turned it off by default in the past, leading first of all to a bad user-experience (according to the browsers). Secondly, non-autofill passwords are typically weaker passwords and might cause security issues.
##### Is it improving your webform completion rate?
Autofill is a widely used browser functionality for filling in online forms. At Exatom we see that, on average, 60-75% of the site visitors that start filling in a form, are using autofill. According to [Google](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/06/checkout-faster-with-autofill), autofill should reduce the time to complete a form up to 30%, when autocomplete attributes are implemented correctly.
The key question for digital marketers, though, is speeding up web form completion also leading to a higher completion rate? And if the autocomplete attributes are not correctly used, will that cause an opposite effect even?
Our answer to the first question is yes. With our clients, we clearly see higher online form completion rates when autofill is being used by the website visitor. The spread is quite large, but we see uplifts between 10-50% higher completion rates compared to the site visitors who fill each field of the web form manually.
What surprised us, is that in the case autofill is causing more error notifications on the form compared to manual input, the completion rates are still higher. This is a signal that users are willing to correct autofill input, as they haven’t spent too much time with the form yet. In other words, autofill that is not working 100% correctly is still delivering higher conversions than no autofill.
Last but not least: we observed the highest difference in webform completion rates between autofill and non-autofill users when the percentage of error notifications in both groups are (almost) equal. This indicates that the auto complete attributes are implemented correctly and the field errors itself have other causes.
In summary: at Exatom we see that web form completion benefits from implementing autocomplete attributes. And even when it’s not working 100% correctly, it still generates a higher conversion rate compared to not using the autofill feature.
##### What is your autofill and error-rate?
Exatom is the first privacy-safe and cookieless platforn that can help you with optimizing your forms, enhance your customer experience and drive more conversions. Sign-up today and experience the ease of setup and get immediate insights on how your forms are performing.
##### Get a free demo for your own company.
- Your biggest friction points, field by field
- No obligation, no hard sell
- Talk directly to an expert
[Get a demo](https://exatom.io/demo/) Free · 30 minutes
##### More from the blog
[All articles](https://exatom.io/blog/)
[Guides Which session replay tool is right for your forms and checkout? A comparison of five tools 25 June 2026 · 8 min read](https://exatom.io/blog/session-replays-for-forms-and-checkouts/) [Guides 10 Most seen problems that cause bad webforms 22 April 2026 · 10 min read](https://exatom.io/blog/10-most-seen-problems-that-cause-bad-webforms/) [Guides Forms and Fields Autofill – how to do it right 21 October 2025 · 4 min read](https://exatom.io/blog/forms-and-fields-autofill-how-to-do-it-right/)
### Autofixes: form friction fixed without a developer | Exatom
Source: https://exatom.io/autofixes/
Autofixes
#### Technical form friction, fixed without a developer
Autofixes detect the technical friction in your forms and checkouts, from a wrong keyboard type to a vague error message, and deploy the fix through the Exatom tag the moment you approve it. No code, no tickets, no sprint.
[Start free plan](https://olympus.exatom.io/signup?utm_source=Website&utm_medium=Website&utm_campaign=FreePlan) [Get a demo](https://exatom.io/demo/)
Trusted on high-value forms and checkouts at
**Detected by Eureka.** Every form is scanned for the technical friction points that make prospects and buyers abandon.
**You approve every fix.** Nothing changes on your form until you say so. Review, approve or dismiss from the dashboard.
**Live in seconds, through one tag.** The tag that measures the form deploys the fix. No release, no waiting for a sprint.
How it works
##### Eureka detects it. Autofixes deploy it. You stay in control.
Four steps from a friction point nobody noticed to a fix that is live, measured and yours to switch off.
01
###### Detect form friction automatically
Eureka monitors every form and checkout for technical friction: wrong keyboard types, missing placeholders, broken autofill, input types that do not match the question.
02
###### A proposed fix with its expected impact
Each finding comes with the fix in plain language and the completions it should recover. Approve it with one click. No technical knowledge needed.
03
###### Live in seconds, no code
Approved fixes go live through the Exatom tag already on your site. No deployment, no ticket, no sprint.
04
###### Measure the impact
Conversion, field completion and drop-off per fix, in the dashboard. Keep what works, switch off what does not.
Why Autofixes
##### The fixes your developers never get round to
Small technical friction points sit at the bottom of every backlog, and every week they stay there costs completions. Autofixes take them off it.
###### Zero developer involvement
Fixes deploy through the tag that is already on your site. Nobody opens a ticket, nobody waits for a release.
###### Cookieless and ISO 27001
Autofixes run on anonymised signals only. No cookies, no personal data, and the AI stays inside Exatom's own infrastructure.
###### Works on any CMS or platform
WordPress, Salesforce, HubSpot, Shopify or custom-built: one JavaScript tag covers every form and checkout.
###### Human in the loop by design
Every fix is proposed first. You review, approve or dismiss it from the dashboard, and you can switch it off at any time.
Proof
+55%
Conversion rate of the test-drive request form after Kia Germany applied the recommended changes.
> “Using the tools from Exatom, helped us to first understand the customers behaviour and improving the UX and CX of several forms. The results are higher as the expectations, which encouraged us to search for additional partnerships with Exatom.”
**Jean-Philippe Pottier** Manager Digital Platforms, Kia Germany
[Read Kia Germany's story](https://exatom.io/customers/kia-germany-test-drive-form-optimisation/)
What Autofixes correct
##### Every technical friction type, detected and fixed
The most common and most costly technical barriers that stop prospects and buyers completing a form. Eureka finds them, Autofixes remove them.
###### Wrong mobile keyboard type
A full text keyboard on a phone number or postcode field slows every mobile prospect down. The fix opens the numeric keypad.
###### Missing input placeholders
No format hint means hesitation, guesses and errors. The fix shows the expected format inside the field.
###### Broken browser autofill
Badly mapped fields make the browser fill in the wrong thing, so buyers retype everything by hand. The fix maps them correctly.
###### Autocomplete disabled
Every field typed from scratch, on every visit. The fix switches autocomplete back on where it is safe to.
###### Input type mismatch
Plain text fields for email, phone or date trigger validation errors and the wrong keyboard. The fix sets the right type.
###### Wrong tab order
Keyboard navigation that jumps around the form breaks the flow for anyone not using a mouse. The fix restores the order.
###### Missing field labels
Fields without labels break screen readers and add hesitation for everyone else. The fix adds them.
###### Vague or missing error messages
"Invalid input" leaves nobody able to correct their entry. The fix says what to do instead.
Meet Eureka
##### Your AI CRO assistant, proposing the fix
Eureka reads the field metrics and the session replays, spots the technical friction behind the drop-off and prepares the Autofix. You approve, the tag deploys.
Scans every form for technical friction Proposes the fix with its expected impact Nothing goes live without your approval
Why do so many mobile buyers abandon at Postcode?
Eureka The field opens a full text keyboard on Android and iOS. 27% of mobile buyers abandon there, versus 9% on desktop. An Autofix that opens a numeric keypad should recover most of it. Shall I prepare it?
Yes, prepare it.
Eureka Ready. Expected +5% checkout completions. Approve it in the dashboard and it is live through the tag in seconds.
Ask Eureka about your form
Customers
##### Proven on high-value forms.
[See all customer stories](https://exatom.io/customers/)
+28%
Test-drive form completion up 28% in one market, alongside GA4.
[Read Hyundai's story](https://exatom.io/customers/hyundai-test-drive-form-optimisation/)
+22%
Ordering conversion up 22%, IBAN field drop-off down 40%.
[Read DELTA Fiber's story](https://exatom.io/customers/delta-fiber-order-flow-optimisation/)
+4%
Checkout conversion up 4% across 13 EMEA webshops, password errors down 44%.
[Read Brooks' story](https://exatom.io/customers/brooks-running-checkout-optimisation/)
“For Brooks Running, the value that Exatom provides on top of Adobe Analytics is the deeper granularity it performs on our forms. By zeroing into specific fields, we ensure our forms are optimised down to details missed in our UX research process. This led to a 4.2% increase in checkout conversions during the first year.”
Jesse Lee Manager, CRM & Customer Analytics EMEA, Brooks Running
FAQ
##### Frequently asked questions
Everything you need to know about Autofixes. Not here? [Contact us](https://exatom.io/contact/)
What exactly do Autofixes do?
Autofixes correct the technical friction points in your forms and checkouts that make prospects and buyers abandon: wrong keyboard types, missing placeholders, broken autofill, input types that do not match the question, tab order, missing labels and vague error messages. Eureka detects them and proposes the fix; once you approve it, the Exatom tag applies it on the page. Your form's code stays untouched. Autofixes are part of the Growth plan, from €79 a month.
Do I need my development team?
Which CMS and form platforms are supported?
How does Eureka detect form friction?
Can I review each fix before it goes live?
How quickly do I see results?
Is it GDPR compliant?
Which friction types are corrected?
How is this different from A/B testing tools?
### Benchmarking Automotive Test-Drive Request Forms: a UX & Design Analysis | Exatom
Source: https://exatom.io/blog/test-drive-request-forms-a-ux-design-analysis/
1. [Home](https://exatom.io/)
2. [Blog](https://exatom.io/blog/)
3. Benchmarking Automotive Test-Drive Request Forms: a UX & Design Analysis
#### Benchmarking Automotive Test-Drive Request Forms: a UX & Design Analysis
This benchmark report highlights a critical opportunity to drive more qualified leads to dealerships by optimising test-drive request forms
**Exatom** 20 March 2025 36 min read Industry reports
On this page
Executive summary 1. Introduction 2. Test-drive forms: a design analysis of 39 car brands 3. Test-drive forms: a benchmark of 39 car brands 4. Conclusions: Ranking the Stars 5. About Exatom and the author Addendum: screenshots of the test-drive forms
##### Executive summary
###### The potential of form improvement for generating more test-drive leads
This benchmark report highlights a critical opportunity for automotive brands in the Netherlands. To drive more qualified leads to dealerships by optimising test-drive request forms . As Test-drive forms act as a crucial conversion point. It bridges online interest with physical dealership visits. Test-drive forms are a key step in converting online interest into car buyers. But despite heavy paid media investments to bring, engagement remains low:
**What are the average performance rates of test-drive forms?**
- **only 11%** of visitors start filling out the form
- **47%** of those who start, try to submit the form
- **only 5%** complete the form with success
Source: Exatom Automotive Industry Analytics, Q4 2024
This highlights **a major inefficiency in marketing ROI**. For Exatom a reason to research the current status of test-drive forms in the Netherlands. Poorly designed forms create unnecessary friction, leading to user frustration and abandonment. Whether due to excessive fields, confusing steps, slow performance, or accessibility barriers. Conversely, optimised forms can boost completion rates. This ensures more high-quality leads reach dealerships.
**Research method**
The analysis was carried out using the Exatom form audit tool. This audit tool focuses on technical evaluation of HTML structures. It does not take into account actual user behaviour. The data collected is between November 2024 and February 2025.
This reasearch covered desktop test-drive forms from 39 automotive brands in the Netherlands. The research is concentrating on personal information fields. Porsche is included with a general contact form, as they don’t offer test-drives. Cupra, Mercedes, and Jaguar are excluded. This is due to technical limitations or market inactivity during the assessment period.
###### Test-drive forms: there is no consensus about the ideal form
Some brands still ask users to select the car model. Even after they click through from a model page. This creates unnecessary effort and cognitive load.
Additionally, there is no clear industry standard about the number of form steps. Some brands choose single-step simplicity. Others create multi-step journeys, which can be helpful if done right. But often lead to higher abandonment when they are too long or lack clear guidance.
Dealer locators are often used, with most brands offering them. This has a noticeable impact on user satisfaction and form completion. Whether they rely on lists, maps, or combinations. Particularly on mobile devices where map-based solutions often become cumbersome.
The number of personal data fields also varies a lot. Brands are balancing here. On one hand, the would like to collect rich customer information for CRM purposes. At the same time, they would like to keep forms short enough to avoid user frustration.
**Accessibility** remains a weak spot for many brands. Even with the European Accessibility Act coming into effect in June 2025. This is leaving them vulnerable to compliance risks. And excluding users with visual or motor impairments. Furthermore, **Site Performance** also differs greatly between brands. Some load their forms in under 0.25 seconds, while others take several seconds. Longer load times is causing impatient visitors to bounce. **Stylistically**, forms with consistent field alignment perform much better. This is true as well when labels are placed above input fields. The same for appropriate font usage and and visibility without scrolling. Better than those cluttered or hidden below the fold. **Usability** audits also reveal that basic elements are missing in several brands’ forms. Like autocomplete, intuitive dropdowns and clear call-to-action buttons. As well as logical keyboard navigation. This is hindering efficiency and frustrating potential customers. Additionally, poor use of **HTML best practices** further damages user experience. Such as incorrect input field types or missing form tags. This impacts mobile usability and autofill performance. Which are crucial for modern user expectations.
###### How did the brands score?
Click to enlarge
This graph summarises how car brands rank on the overall Exatom audit score. **Toyota** leads with the highest score. It’s achieving a near-perfect rating of 10. Demonstrating best-in-class form performance, usability, and technical compliance. A large group of brands, including **DS, Smart, Fiat, and Lynk & Co**, fall into a strong mid-range cluster. They are scoring between 7.5 and 9, indicating good but not flawless form quality. Another substantial group of brands score around the 6.0–7.5 range. This reflects average execution with room for improvement in design, usability, or performance. At the bottom, brands like **Renault, Dacia, Porsche, and Ford** score below 6. This score is highlighting significant weaknesses in form structure, accessibility, or loading speed. All of which risk frustrating users and losing valuable leads. Some brands clearly invest in optimising this key digital touchpoint. While others lag far behind. And therefore missing out on conversion potential.
###### To conclude
Brands that invest in optimising their forms will improve their marketing ROI. And significantly increase their lead capture potential. It’s about reducing unnecessary fields and re-filling user selections. By optimising dealer locators and user-friendly designs. Those who fail to do so risk falling behind competitors. Competitors who are already leveraging form optimisation as a key digital advantage. In a highly competitive automotive market.
In summary, optimising test-drive request forms is not just a UX project. It is a direct revenue opportunity. Brands that invest in form improvements stand to gain a competitive advantage. By converting more website visitors into valuable dealership leads. This drives both operational efficiency and sales growth.
Author:
Stephan van den Bremer
Co-founder & CEO
Exatom BV
[LinkedIn\](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephan-van-den-bremer/)
##### 1. Introduction
###### The purpose of the report
The purpose of this benchmark report is to analyse and compare test-drive forms. This is done across 39 automotive OEM brands in the Netherlands. With focus on the technical and design differences. All these forms serve the same purpose. Which is allowing potential customers to request a test drive. This report highlights the significant variations. In their structure, design, and overall quality. By showcasing these differences, it raises a question. Whether all brands place the same level of attention, expertise, and value on optimising their forms for performance. Some brands demonstrate best practices in usability and conversion optimisation. While others may fall short. It suggests that the strategic importance of optimised forms is not universally recognised. Not across the automotive industry.
###### The scope and methodology
This benchmark report analyses the test-drive request forms of 39 largest automotive brands. Brand that are selling new cars in the Netherlands. With focus is on their technical implementation, design, and user experience. Exatom conducted the analysis using the Exatom form audit tool. This tool evaluates the form based on the HTML code. It does not take into account user behavioural data. Using form analytics would have provided more depth. But this would require the Exatom code to be present on all 39 automotive websites.
The scope includes only desktop versions of these forms, with the data collected between November 2024 and February 2025. The assessment primarily focuses on the personal information section of the form, with additional insights into form characteristics such as single versus multi-step structures and other key design elements. While most brands had dedicated test-drive request forms, Porsche was included despite using a general contact form. However, Cupra and Mercedes were excluded due to their forms utilizing a shadow-root structure, which cannot be scored, and Jaguar was temporarily excluded as they are not selling new cars during the analysis period.
###### Why Test-Drive Request Forms Matter in the Automotive Sales Funnel
Test-drive request forms play a key role in the automotive sales funnel. They are a major step between online interest and visiting a dealership. For many buyers, booking a test drive is the first real action in their buying journey. It moves them from research to direct contact with the brand. A well-optimised form helps make this transition smooth. It cuts down on friction and ensures more leads make it to the showroom.
Test drives show a strong buying intent. How well the form performs has a direct effect on lead generation—and sales. A form that’s too long, unclear, or hard to complete can cause users to drop off. When this happens, potential buyers may leave and consider a competitor instead. On the other hand, a form that’s clear, short, and easy to use improves the experience. It boosts conversion rates and delivers better-quality leads to dealers.
Test-drive forms also show how mature a brand’s digital experience is. Brands that build optimised forms show they value the customer journey. In a competitive market, this can set them apart. Car brands can increase the number of leads by making forms smooth and effective. This grows showroom visits, and boosts overall sales. But test-drive forms are not just important for sales. They also impact return on investment (ROI). Automotive brands spend heavily on paid media to bring buyers to their websites. But test-drive forms often underperform, creating a big gap in the funnel.
- **Only 11%** of users who land on a test-drive form actually start filling it in. This means 89% leave without even engaging
- Of those who start filling in the form, an average of **47% reach the submit button**
- Ultimately, **only 5% of users complete the form and successfully convert into a lead**
This means most high-intent visitors—brought in through paid campaigns—leave without converting. A better form design can fix that.
An optimised test-drive form is key to improving lead quality. And create a high return on marketing spend. Even small gains in form starts and completions can lead to more test drives and higher sales. Brands that don’t improve these forms risk wasting their media budgets. Those that focus on ease of use and conversion optimisation can gain a strong advantage.
In short, test-drive forms are critical. They connect marketing investment with real sales outcomes. Making them better helps brands capture more leads. Booking more test drives means winning more customers.
##### 2. Test-drive forms: a design analysis of 39 car brands
###### 2.1. Number of Form Steps
Automotive brands pick either **a single-step or multi-step form** for test-drive requests. This is based on multiple focus areas. Like user experience, data collection, and conversion optimisation. In this research, a step means a separate page where the user clicks to move to the next part. In this scope, splitting content into sections on the same page does not count as a multi-step form.
Brands using a single-step form focus on speed and ease. Showing all fields on one page helps users understand what’s needed right away. This lowers the chance of confusion. And works well when there are only a few fields, keeping drop-off risk low. But if the form asks for too much at once, it can feel cluttered and scare users off.
Multi-step forms are better when the request needs several choices. Common steps include setting a time and date, choosing a dealer, and adding personal info. We see brands applying multi-steps on a single page, but also seperate pages for each step. Some brands include a final review step before submission. Breaking the form into steps lowers mental effort and leads users through the flow. But, asking users to complete many steps can cause drop-offs if the process feels too long or tricky.
The choice between single-step and multi-step forms depends on how much information is required, the importance of guiding the user through a structured process, and the need to balance simplicity with data accuracy.
**Conclusion:** The data reveals that there is no common agreement among automotive brands regarding the optimal number of steps for completing a test-drive request form. The distribution shows that while a majority of brands (19) opt for a single-step form, others implement multi-step processes. With 11 brands using three steps, 6 brands using four steps, and 3 brands using two steps.
This variation suggests that brands balance different priorities when designing their forms. A **single-step form** simplifies the process. It reduces friction and increases completion rates, but may overwhelm users if too much information is required at once. **Multi-step forms** break the process into logical sections. Such as choosing a preferred time, selecting a dealer, and providing personal details. Some brands also include a final step for reviewing information before submission.
The absence of a standardised approach indicates that brands experiment with different structures to find the right balance between user experience and lead quality. The choice often depends on the complexity of the test-drive booking process, the amount of required information, and the brand’s strategy in guiding potential customers through the journey.
###### 2.2. Dealer locator availability
A dealer locator on a test-drive form serves a functional purpose by directing users to the nearest or most relevant dealership, ensuring a seamless transition from online interest to an in-person visit. It helps users find a convenient location without manual searching, reducing friction and improving conversion rates. By automatically or manually selecting a dealer, the locator ensures test-drive requests reach the right sales representatives, improving response times and lead accuracy. It also enhances the user experience by simplifying the selection process, often using geolocation or postcode entry. In regulated markets, it ensures compliance with territorial agreements by directing leads to the correct dealership. A well-designed dealer locator should be intuitive, mobile-friendly, and require minimal input from the user to complete the form efficiently.
**Conclusion:** Nearly all brands (38 out of 39) provide a dealer locator in their test-drive form, making it a standard feature. The one exception is **Lynk&Co**, which centralises the follow-up of test-drive requests.
Most brands (21) use a list-only dealer locator. Seven use a map only. Ten combine both. A list is easier to scan, especially when it shows only nearby dealers. A map is more visual and interactive but can be harder to use. On mobile, many brands use the same test-drive form. In that case, a list works better. Maps on small screens often get crowded with icons. Users need to zoom and scroll a lot, which can be frustrating. So, a list-only view is recommended for mobile.
###### 2.3. Browsed model preselected
When a visitor is looking at a specific car model and clicks the test-drive request button, the form they land on should already have that **model** selected. This small detail can make a big difference in the user experience. Preselecting the model removes a step from the process. The user doesn’t have to choose the car again, which saves time and avoids confusion. It also reduces the risk of errors. This is especially helpful for brands with a wide range of models, trims, or versions.
This approach creates a smoother, faster journey. When users see the model they were just looking at already filled in, it confirms they’re in the right place. It keeps them engaged and makes it more likely they’ll complete the form. Every extra step adds friction. And friction leads to drop-off. A seamless process helps more users follow through.
Preselection also shows that the brand understands user behaviour. It respects the time and intent of the visitor. Instead of asking them to repeat themselves, it guides them forward. This level of thoughtfulness builds trust and makes the experience feel more personal.
**Conclusion:** Most brands (28) have already implemented this feature. When users click from a model page, the test-drive form has that model selected by default. This makes the form quicker to complete and feels more intuitive. However, 11 brands still require users to manually pick the model. Even though they just came from that model’s page. This adds unnecessary friction and can lead to confusion or mistakes.
Some brands have partial solutions. **Audi**, for example, asks the user to select a model, but only shows the one they were browsing. So the system recognises the model, but doesn’t auto-fill it. The logic is there, but it doesn’t improve the experience. **Subaru** is similar. The model is in the URL, which means the site knows what the user was looking at. But the form still asks them to choose the model again.
To improve conversion and user satisfaction, the model of interest should be preselected. It’s a small detail that can make a big impact when a user clicks through to a form.
###### 2.4. Day & time scheduling option
Letting users pick a day and time for their test drive makes the experience easier. It also feels more personal. It gives potential customers more control. And helping them fit the test drive into their schedule. This flexibility increases the chance they’ll show up and complete the visit.
When people can choose a time that works for them, it reduces friction. It feels more tailored and respectful of their time. That small detail can improve both engagement and conversion rates. It helps move the user smoothly from online interest to an in-person dealership visit.
At the same time, there are some challenges. The time slot a user picks might not be available. This can lead to frustration or delays. Especially if the dealer has to contact the customer again to reschedule. To avoid this, brands can add a real-time scheduling tool or show only open slots.
Another thing to keep in mind is form length. Adding a scheduling option means more fields for the user to fill in. If the form looks too long or complex, users might give up. Long forms often lead to lower completion rates. It’s important to balance convenience with simplicity.
Still, offering a scheduling option sends a positive message. It shows the brand is organised, flexible, and puts the user first. It also helps the dealer prepare for the appointment. Which can lead to a better test drive experience overall.
There’s a near 50/50 split among brands. Some allow users to choose a test drive time directly in the form. Others leave scheduling to be handled later by the dealer. A date and time picker may slightly increase form length. But the benefits often outweigh the risks. When done well, it can raise the chance of completed test drives. And improve satisfaction on both sides. For best results, brands should consider showing available slots and confirming bookings clearly. This keeps things smooth and avoids back-and-forth communication.
\
###### 2.5. GDPR consent checkbox
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect on 24 May 2016. And has applied since 25 May 2018. Its main goal is to reduce differences in national privacy laws and. But in practice, automotive brands interpret the rules in different ways. Some ask users for clear consent to handle personal data. Others others use legitimate interest as the legal reason. What is the most used method?
Just over half of the brands (21) do not show a consent checkbox. These 21 rely on legitimate interest. The other 18 do and ask for clear, explicit consent. Some brands, like **Mini**, also show a checkbox with legal text that looks like a consent request. But checking the box actually signs the user up for a newsletter.
###### 2.6. Number of Fields
How many fields are needed for a dealer to offer a test drive? The number of fields in test-drive forms varies. This often depends on brand strategy, target audience, and the stage of the customer journey. Some automotive brands focus on a smooth user experience. They use short forms to boost completion rates and reduce drop-offs. Others choose longer forms with 9–10 fields or more. Their goal is better lead qualification and collecting useful data for follow-ups. Data privacy rules also influence this choice. Some brands prefer asking for less information to stay compliant with GDPR and similar laws.
Internal teams also shape the form. Sales, marketing, and CRM departments often have different goals. Sales teams usually want more fields to qualify leads better. Marketing teams push for shorter forms to get more conversions. CRM teams focus on clean, detailed data. They may ask for precise names and full address fields.
In the end, each brand balances user experience, lead quality, compliance, and internal needs. The final number of fields reflects all these priorities.
Apparently there is no common agreement on this between the Dutch automotive companies.
The most common number is 6 fields, with a few outliers having as few as 3 fields or as many as 15. The median is 8 fields. The common denominator in all forms is the use of these fields:
• First name
• Last name
• Email address
• Phone number
**Conclusion:** Forms with 8-9 fields likely offer a balance between capturing necessary data and reducing user effort. **Suzuki** has the most fields in their test-drive form: 15. This form has separate fields for middle name (‘Tussenvoegsel’), additional house number, remarks and several checkboxes for consent, marketing and surveys. And with **Dacia, Hyundai and Smart** the fewest: only 5.
###### 2.7. ‘Tussenvoegsel’ field
The “Tussenvoegsel” field is common in Dutch names. About 24% of Dutch people (see our blog) have last names that start with words like “Van”, “Van de”, “Van ’t”, “Op de”, and so on. There are about 300 of these prefixes.
In 1994, the Dutch government decided to split names like “Van den Bremer” into two parts:
• Tussenvoegsel: “Van den”
• Last name: “Bremer”
Why? To sort names in computer systems by the actual last name (“Bremer”), not the prefix (“Van den”).
Some Dutch forms ask users to enter the tussenvoegsel separately. Others don’t. They just ask for the full last name. The reason for using this field is often coming from the CRM department. They ‘require’ this field in the database.
But browsers don’t understand this field. When users use autofill, their full name (family name) goes into the last name field anyway. In the automotive sector, around 44% of users use autofill for their last name. As a result, nearly 10% of test drive requests in the Netherlands end up with an empty tussenvoegsel field. And users are not correcting this.
**Conclusion:** Most brands (28) leave out the “Tussenvoegsel” field. They likely want to keep forms simple. But 11 brands still include it. They may focus more on getting names entered ‘correctly’.
Interesting: all private importer brands in the Netherlands— **Volkswagen, Audi, SEAT, Skoda, Toyota, Lexus, and Suzuki** —are in this group. Which makes sense. These brands create their own forms and don’t deal with forms created by European or global digital teams. But there’s a catch: they seem to ignore the autofill issue. Browsers often skip or misplace the tussenvoegsel. This creates errors in name fields, even when users fill forms correctly.
##### 3. Test-drive forms: a benchmark of 39 car brands
###### Accessibility
Accessibility is a key part of digital experiences. It makes sure websites and platforms work for everyone. This includes people with visual impairments, physical disabilities, or other challenges. It also helps those in situations with slow internet or limited devices. Accessibility removes barriers that block people from using websites fully. When sites and forms are well designed, built, and updated, more users can find and use what they need. Everyone gets equal access to content, features, and services.
For digital marketers in the car industry, this matters a lot. Better accessibility can increase user engagement, improve customer satisfaction, and boost conversions. It also shows that your brand values inclusion and user experience.
The European Accessibility Act (EAA) takes effect on June 18th 2025. It sets new rules for digital accessibility across the EU. Brands must meet these standards or risk falling behind. Not following the rules could limit your audience and create legal risks. Preparing now helps you stay ahead and serve more users.
With the EAA, these rules are now the same across the EU. This makes it easier for automotive companies to follow the law. It also removes market barriers and helps reduce costs. Experts estimate the industry could save up to €10 billion each year across all member states and companies.
For car businesses, following the EAA is a must. Not meeting the rules can lead to fines. It can also hurt your brand and limit how many people you can reach. But when done right, accessibility brings clear benefits. Using accessible design helps older users, people with disabilities, and those with short-term challenges. This widens your audience and builds trust in your brand.
Accessible digital tools—like websites, apps, and forms—also give users a better experience. That can lead to more leads, higher customer satisfaction, and better retention. Plus, companies that focus on accessibility often drive more innovation and stand out from the crowd.
In short, getting ready for the EAA is smart business. It helps brands grow, save money, and build a strong reputation. It also shows you care about all users—making your brand more inclusive and socially responsible.
This benchmark evaluates the accessibility of test-drive request forms across various automotive brands, using a scoring system based on five key factors: **contrasting field borders, contrasting input text colour, contrasting field label colour, sufficiently large font sizes for labels, and adequate field label spacing**. How do the brands score on accessibility?
**Weight: 3** **Conclusion:** Our analysis shows that **Lotus, Skoda, Hyundai, Kia, and Seat** lead the way in digital accessibility. These brands are named “Benchmark Champions” for their strong efforts. Lotus stands out with a perfect score of 10.0.
On the other end, **Opel, Volvo, MG, Lynk & Co, and Jeep** fall into the “Need Improvement” group. Jeep scored the lowest with just 2.4. These brands risk excluding users with visual impairments. They may also face challenges meeting the new EAA rules coming in 2025.
Improving accessibility helps more than compliance. It creates better user experiences, increases conversions, and shows that your brand values all customers. For automotive brands, now is the time to act. Making digital channels inclusive and ready for the future.
###### Performance
Web performance is about how quickly the form page appears in the browser and is ready for user interaction. In other words, the page interactivity time. Poor-performing form pages are slow to display. And slow to respond to input. Running the risk of increasing online form abandonment. At its worst, bad performance causes content to be completely inaccessible.
**Weight: 3** **Conclusion:**This performance graph highlights significant differences in form page load speed across various automotive brands. Five brands—Lexus, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, and MG—achieved a perfect 10.0 score. Indicating fast and optimised form loading times under 0.25 seconds. Not in the graph, but also scoring a 10 are Polestar and Zeekr. These brands likely prioritise technical efficiency, streamlined design, and possibly optimised hosting infrastructure. To ensure a seamless user experience and reducing the risk of visitor drop-offs.
On the other hand, Honda, Citroën, Hyundai, Porsche, and BYD perform significantly worse, with scores around 4.9 and BYD at 3.6, the lowest in the ranking. This means load times between 4-5 seconds, which can lead to higher bounce rates, reduced conversion rates, and frustrated potential customers. The causes might include heavy images, unoptimised scripts, poor server performance, or excessive third-party integrations slowing down the form page.
The stark contrast between the top and bottom performers suggests that page load speed is not universally optimised across the industry. While some brands have perfected it, others may need to prioritise performance improvements. This can be done by reducing unnecessary elements, enabling caching, optimising media files, and improving server response times.
###### Style
To audit the style of the test-drive forms, we ran an analysis on 5 different items:
1. **Field alignment and size:** form fields should be aligned as much as possible and their size should be consistent.
2. **Form font consistency:** it’s advised not to use more than two or more different fonts within your form.
3. **Form position:** forms that are immediately in-view for your website visitor convert best.
4. **Form size:** ideally your form is as concise as possible and should fit on a desktop computer’s screen.
5. **Labels above fields:** multiple studies and benchmarks agree that labels above input fields are the best position. Certainly on smaller screen devices this has an advantage as the input field can be larger.
**Weight: 1** **Conclusion:**This graph highlights significant differences in form page style among automotive brands, with **Honda, Lotus, Mini, Renault, and Dacia** leading as the best-designed forms (scoring between 9.2 and 9.6). Their high scores suggest visually appealing, user-friendly, and well-structured forms that likely contribute to better engagement and higher completion rates.
On the other hand, **Volkswagen, SEAT, Peugeot, Mazda, and Hyundai** rank lower, with **Hyundai** scoring the lowest at 3.7. These brands may have less intuitive or outdated designs, cluttered layouts, or inconsistent branding. Which makes their forms less engaging and harder to complete. **Mazda** ’s form, for example, is below the fold and therefore not immediately visible for the user. Hyundai scored low on field alignment and font consistency. A poor visual experience can negatively impact user trust and lead to higher drop-off rates.
The clear performance gap suggests that aesthetic quality directly influence form engagement. Brands in the lower range should consider optimising their form design, improving readability, spacing, and visual hierarchy.
###### Usability
At Exatom, we audit the usability of test-drive forms by evaluating how easy it is for visitors to interact and complete them. Key factors include form design, input efficiency, and conversion impact. We check whether autocomplete is enabled to speed up form filling, analyse CTA button visibility and clarity, and assess dropdown and radio button usage for optimal interaction. We also review field repetition, ensuring users don’t enter the same data multiple times. Like confirm your email.Other aspects like keyboard navigation, input focus, responsive keyboards and captcha impact are tested. These are all aspects that influence a smooth and conversion-friendly experience.
**Weight: 4** **Conclusion:**The usability audit reveals a clear divide between high-performing and underperforming brands in test-drive form usability. **Toyota, Lexus, Lynk & Co, Honda, and Citroën** score the highest (6.9~7.0) on usability, indicating well-optimised forms with features like autocomplete, clear CTA buttons, efficient dropdowns, and smooth keyboard navigation. These brands focus on user-friendly forms.
Conversely, **Zeekr, Renault, Opel, Porsche, and Dacia** score poorly (2.0-2.9), signaling usability issues. Lack of autocomplete, unclear CTA buttons (like ‘Send’ instead of ‘Request your test-drive’), excessive form fields, and poor natural navigation contribute to these low scores. For example, **Renault and Dacia** show a magnifyer icon in the email field, which has no function and is not clickable. Also, a drop-down field is used when there are only three options. Best practice is to use radio buttons up to three options and a drop-down when there are four or more options to choose from. To improve, these brands should simplify form structure, enhance input efficiency, and optimise for mobile usability to reduce friction and increase conversion rates.
###### Web standards
Automotive test-drive request forms rely on a combination of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Adhering to web standards and best practices is essential for ensuring a seamless user experience across all devices. Proper implementation of form elements enhances usability, accessibility, and compatibility, improving overall conversion rates. That’s why this is weighted very high in our analyisis.
One common issue is the incorrect use of input field types. For example, using a standard text field instead of ``. This best practice not only enables basic email validation. It also activates autocomplete and device-specific keyboard layouts. Showing the correct keyboard on mobile makes form completion faster and more efficient. Particularly on mobile devices.
Another crucial aspect is the proper use of `