It is a common sentiment amongst financial institutions that goes something like: “We’d love to serve low-income women, but it’s just too costly.” This assumption that catering to women customers inherently undermines profitability has lingered for years. But is it really true?
We explored this in our research and found that nearly two-thirds of financial services providers (FSPs) who participated in our survey disagreed that offering products to low-income customers at scale is “too expensive”. Yet, despite this shifting perception, many institutions still struggle to build a business case for women-centric products. But why the disconnect?
The answer lies in product design barriers, where internal blind spots and biases can increase costs. In this blog post, we unpack these product design barriers through the “cost myth,” exploring how a lack of gender data and insight feeds the perception that serving women isn’t viable, and how that myth, in turn, leads to suboptimal product designs that keep costs high and uptake low. The truth we found is that women can be a profitable market–if products are designed right.
Let’s break down why the “too expensive” narrative persists and how to turn it around.
The “cost myth” and gaps in gender data
Anyone who’s worked in the financial inclusion space has heard this argument: “small balance accounts and micro-loans don’t pay off.” Historically, women were considered customers with low profit margins who transact in tiny amounts, drive up service costs, and contribute little to the bottom line. But our research uncovered a critical flaw in that thinking. Most institutions lack the data to accurately measure women’s profitability in the first place. Women’s World Banking’s industry survey finds that two-thirds of institutions report collecting gender-disaggregated data (GDD), but only a little over half apply a gender lens when using this data for business decisions. Without clear gender data, institutions miss out on a business case for serving women.
So, why does data matter so much? Because numbers often tell a different story than mere assumptions. For example, a detailed review of over 90 Women’s World Banking advisory solutions projects conducted between 2017 and 2024 revealed that women customers can have higher customer lifetime value (CLV) than men when products truly meet their needs. Women are often more reliable savers and borrowers, which means long-term revenue can outweigh higher upfront costs. But if an institution isn’t tracking usage, repayment, and retention by gender, these benefits stay invisible. In short, the underutilization of gender data reinforces the cost myth and creates a vicious cycle. So, breaking this cycle is crucial, and it starts with treating gender data as more than a compliance box-tick. While nearly 40% of FSPs report setting targets or dedicating teams to women customers, only 26% incorporate women’s perspectives into product design (e.g., via user research or women-centered design methodology). Unless FSPs actively analyze how women customers use products and where pain points or drop-offs occur, they’ll keep defaulting to one-size-fits-all designs and miss the ways women could be profitable with a different approach.
On the flip side, institutions that have embraced gender data are seeing results. For example, one of the FSPs that recognized the importance of GDD is Lendingkart, a fintech company in India. They collect a robust gender-disaggregated dataset on their customers and analyze it through a gender lens. This approach enabled borrowing from qualified women applicants at lower cost and strengthened trust with potential women customers—demonstrating how gender data can drive both institutional performance and customer uptake.
A few missing pieces in product design
Even with better data, only 26% of providers in our industry survey said they incorporate women’s perspectives in product design. And, this isn’t about gender-siloed products (like a special “pink” product); it’s about everyday design choices. These are things like an overdraft product might fail women if it doesn’t consider that some women have irregular income flows, requiring more flexible repayment schedules. Or a marketing campaign might flop because it uses imagery and language that don’t speak to women’s needs.
Here are some examples. Women’s World Banking advisory project with Bank of Baroda in India found that women with basic Jan Dhan accounts weren’t using them to save. We dug further and found women felt their “small” deposits weren’t welcome at the bank. The product wasn’t inherently flawed, but the positioning and frontline interactions signaled to women that they didn’t belong. Other similar stories are that if marketing algorithms or frontline staff inadvertently favor men, fewer women even enter the funnel to scale a product. Or, if the onboarding process were onerous (e.g., lots of paperwork requiring a husband’s signature or multiple ID proofs), women are more likely to abandon the application, leaving accounts underutilized.
So, is it that women are costly to serve, or that products have been costly by institutional design? Our findings suggest the latter. Consider digital financial services where many providers assumed women “weren’t interested” in mobile banking, but in truth, interfaces and support weren’t tailored to women’s lower digital familiarity. The result? Women stayed away, and providers saw low adoption (which they interpreted as unprofitable to pursue). In Pakistan, a Women’s World Banking project with JazzCash tackled this by introducing female agents and simplified mobile wallet onboarding for women. The outcome was a spike in women’s enrollment with 566 new customers, 42% of whom were women. This shows that when products account for women’s needs and capabilities, women respond with uptake and loyalty.
Realigning the business case
So, is it too expensive to serve low-income women customers? Not if you do it intentionally. Yes, it might require upfront investment, such as collecting gender data, conducting user research, training staff, or adjusting products. But those investments trump the real barriers (data gaps, design misfits, trust deficits) rather than papering them over. And the evidence suggests they pay off. By incorporating these into the institution’s business strategy and operations, providers can achieve both financial sustainability and women’s inclusion. The bottom line: women represent a vast, underserved market, and designing products with women in mind is the key to unlocking it.
To learn more about Women’s World Banking’s research on barriers to women’s financial inclusion, stay tuned for the launch of the microsite coming at the end of March 2026. The microsite includes the full write-up and exemplars on barriers to women’s financial inclusion.
This research was made possible with funding from the Gates Foundation.
