Case study 01 · Institutional fintech · AI

Edgefolio — Fund evaluation for institutional investors

Eight tabs of fund data an allocator had to turn into a yes or no, with no path through them. I rebuilt them into two pages, a conviction funnel that reads like a decision, then a freemium hub for the deep dive.

Read
7 of 7allocators reached the data tier unprompted in testing
420+fund managers onboarded at one tier-1 prime broker
20%projected conversion lift, on a buy cycle of months to years
Role
Senior Product Designer, institutional finance
Scope
Fund profile, onboarding, Investor Hub
Method
Session recordings, allocator interviews
ProblemEight fully-populated tabs held everything an allocator needed. But the structure assumed they already knew what they were looking for, so they bounced between tabs and never reached the data.
The callStop reorganising tabs. The profile has two sides, so I designed both. For investors, a conviction funnel for the analyst then an investor hub for the PM, with the manager's reasoning surfaced before the numbers. For managers, a live dashboard and an onboarding journey.
ResultThe investor profile went from eight tabs to two pages. In testing, 7 of 7 allocators reached the data tier unprompted, and the onboarding journey carried 420+ fund managers onto the platform at one tier-1 prime broker. Conversion is projected to lift 20%, on an allocation cycle that runs months to years.

One profile, two sides

Every fund profile has two sides. The manager builds it. The investor reads it to reach a yes or no. The same object, read from opposite ends. The old product served neither, so I designed both.

Who uses a fund profile A top-of-funnel timeline. A prime broker introduces the fund and the fund manager keeps the profile current. The allocator's analyst screens it, the investor builds the case in the data room, and an IC memo goes to the committee for a yes or no. This case study covers both sides, the highlighted stages: the fund manager who builds and maintains the profile, and the analyst and data room on the investor's side. The fund profile The decision Prime broker Fund manager Analyst Data room Committee introduces the fund builds & keeps current discovers & screens DDQ, ODD, the IC memo decides, yes or no This case study · Both sides of the platform

Start with the investor's side. It is two jobs, not one. An analyst screens for bad fits and decides whether to forward. A Portfolio Manager goes deep and builds the case for committee. A single layout could not do both, so the real question was never how to reorganise eight tabs. It was how to serve each job in one profile.

"I don't trust a number I can't see the reasoning for."
What an allocator told me in a session I sat in on. It became the rule the whole rebuild followed.
Before
Vantage Global Macro Fund
OverviewPitchAnalysisExposuresPeer analysisNewsData roomContact

Eight tabs, one visible at a time. No path, no order, and one structure forced on two different jobs.

Eight tabs. The allocator holds the whole fund in their head.

After · one fund profile, two pages
1Conviction Funnel

The overview — invites you in

  1. 1HookDoes it clear my filters?
  2. 2ProofAre the returns real?
  3. 3RiskWorst drawdown, and recovery
  4. 4TrustCan I defend it?
  5. 5AccessHow do I proceed
2Investor Hub

The deep dive — when you're ready

  • Performance analytics
  • Risk & exposures
  • Peer analysis
  • Data room · 21 documents
  • NDA-gated transparency
  • IC memo generator

Eight tabs became two pages. The funnel invites you in and screens. The hub is the deep dive, for when you're ready to commit.

Conviction Funnel — for the screener

Analysts bounced between tabs and went straight back. No tab told them what question it answered. I mapped the sequence a screener actually follows, hook to access, and made it the shape of the page. Each section earns the next. Capped at five, because past that, testers lost the thread.

I prototyped in code with AI tools, since the scroll and data-density states could not be tested in Figma. The model gave me transitions in an afternoon, then defaulted to hiding detail until asked, the exact gating problem I was there to solve. Knowing when to overrule it was the skill.

Fixing the tab-bouncing

  • The easy fixRelabel the tabs. But labels were never the problem. Analysts bounced because they had not formed the question each tab answered.
  • The AI defaultHide detail until asked. That would rebuild the gating problem the research surfaced, so I overruled the model.
  • What I builtFive sections in the screener's own order, with the manager's comment ahead of the returns.
View my comment

The team thought the manager's commentary sat too high in Proof. Every allocator in research told me they needed the reasoning before the numbers. So it stayed. Research outranked the room's instinct.

The Conviction Funnel — the screener's actual sequence, made the structure of the page. The frame scrolls through the five sections, hook to access, as a screener would.

Investor Hub — for the decision-maker

Once the PM takes over, the job shifts from building conviction to building evidence. The hub is that evidence layer: gated document access compliance could sign off, and a memo generator that turns the data room and the LP's activity into a formatted IC memo before committee.

Data room documents

DDQ / ODD pack Risk reports Audited financials

Session activity

Viewed: returns, exposures Requested: NDA transparency

Generated IC memo

Vantage Global Macro — IC memo
  • Summary and recommendation
  • Performance and risk
  • Operational due diligence
  • Open questions
The memo generator. The open data room's documents and the LP's session activity combine into a formatted IC memo, so the PM walks into committee already prepared.
The Investor Hub — the evidence layer the PM walks into committee with.

The manager's side

The manager sees the same decision form from the other end. The Fund dashboard is the conviction funnel in reverse. Who is looking, what they are reading, and what needs attention to earn the yes.

The manager's Fund dashboard for Vantage Global Macro — live allocator activity, the deal pipeline, introduction requests and profile health
The manager's Fund dashboard. The same Vantage profile, read from the supply side, with the live allocator session showing the manager's commentary read before the numbers.
Who uses a fund profile A top-of-funnel timeline. A prime broker introduces the fund and the fund manager keeps the profile current. The allocator's analyst screens it, the investor builds the case in the data room, and an IC memo goes to the committee for a yes or no. This case study covers both sides, the highlighted stages: the fund manager who builds and maintains the profile, and the analyst and data room on the investor's side. The fund profile The decision Prime broker Fund manager Analyst Data room Committee introduces the fund builds & keeps current discovers & screens DDQ, ODD, the IC memo decides, yes or no This case study · Both sides of the platform
The investor seesThe manager sees
ProofThe manager's commentary leads, before the numbers.
Live sessionSees the commentary read first, before the track record.
The funnelClimbs hook to access, one rung at a time.
PipelineWatches profile view move toward allocation.
AccessRequests the documents to proceed.
Introduction requestsApproves the introduction, opens the data room.
One profile, two views of the same decision. The investor's screen and the manager's dashboard are the same system, read from both ends.

Managers also have to get on in the first place. That supply side was manual and piecemeal. I rebuilt it as an automated journey for the capital-introduction teams who bring managers on.

01 · Reach
Email sequence
  • Triggered invite from the capital-introduction team
  • Staged reminders, no manual chasing
02 · Activate
In-app onboarding flow
  • Guided profile build, step by step
  • Benchmark and holdings set up in place
03 · Retain
Learning hub
  • Teaches the product as the manager goes
  • Self-serve, so the team scales without headcount

One journey, three touchpoints, built for the capital-introduction teams. The profile a manager fills here is what the investor's side then reads.

How a profile earns an investor's trust, I cover in Who uses a fund profile?

What it changed

Institutional allocation runs on months to years, and I left as the rebuild went live, so a closed conversion number could not exist on my timeline. The 20% is an honest projection. What could be measured had: 7 of 7 allocators reached the data tier unprompted in testing, and 420+ managers onboarded at one tier-1 prime broker. Splitting the hub's dual CTA also removed a compliance review the team had treated as unavoidable.

There was no brief. I ran the research, defined the problem, and led the rebuild. The AI prototyping framework became company-wide, and the onboarding journey became the template for every other bank.

Reflection

The insight came from the research, not the brief. Everyone called it an engagement problem. The recordings showed two jobs on the investor's side that needed different surfaces. I accepted that framing for two weeks while the answer sat in the tapes. I was watching for friction when I should have watched for intent.

Next

02 — A symptom checker 5.5M people use