Elevation Survey Review 2026: What We Learned and What’s Changing for You
Over the past 6 months, we completed VouchedFor’s first formal review of the Elevation question set.
Our goal was simple: a more relevant, more insightful, and more actionable version of Elevation - without compromising year‑on‑year comparability or client experience.
Elevation is used by thousands of advisers and firms as a core part of their client feedback and Consumer Duty evidence. As both regulation and expectations evolve, it's essential that the question set and supporting analytics evolve too.
To achieve this, we brought together insights from:
Direct adviser and firm feedback throughout 2025
Insights shared with us over previous years
A dedicated customer panel representing a diverse cross‑section of firms and networks
Internal research in partnership with the Defaqto research team
By combining these inputs, we built a clear picture of what advisers and firms need, what clients experience, and how Elevation can better support Consumer Duty outcomes. Here’s what we learned and what’s changing between February and May 2026.
What we heard - and what we’re changing
1. Make repeat reviews shorter and more relevant
As part of our research, clients and advisers consistently told us that while the first review should remain comprehensive, repeat reviews need to be shorter, more relevant, and better tailored to the client’s current circumstances. Annual invites are valuable for Consumer Duty evidence and Top Rated status, but they can also lead to survey fatigue when clients are asked questions that no longer apply to them.
What we learned
Clients want a shorter, more focused repeat review, without losing the value of the initial full survey.
Advisers highlighted that irrelevant questions, such as asking ongoing clients whether they plan to use the service again, create friction and frustration.
Our panel strongly supported question improvements to address common misunderstandings from clients.
What’s changing
To address this feedback and improve the experience without reducing data quality, we are introducing:
Shorter, smarter optional surveys for repeat clients, while keeping core Consumer Duty‑focused questions.
Clearer signposting, subtitles, and clearer progress bar
Specific changes to questions outlined below, with changes in bold
Original | New |
What topics do you discuss in your sessions with [adviser]? (Financial advice clients) Answer options:
| Would you let your adviser / their firm know about personal challenges or life events (e.g. bereavement, health issues, relationship difficulties)? Answer options:
(Question currently included in Mortgage/ Equity Release question set) |
How did [adviser] or their firm earn money from working with you? (Protection advice client) Answer options:
| How did [adviser] or their firm earn money from working with you? (Protection advice client) Answer options:
|
These updates work together to ensure Elevation remains meaningful, compliant, and genuinely reflective of the adviser-client relationship, while making the repeat review process faster and easier for clients to complete.
See the shortened question set for repeat reviewers here.
2. Stronger insight through clearer negative options
What we learned
Firms told us the distinction between “Not sure” and negative answers wasn’t clear enough, making analysis hard and occasionally over‑flagging risk. There was also broad support for more balanced answer scales on sentiment questions, though advisers wanted a careful, staged approach which would not negatively impact Year-on-Year analysis.
What’s changing
Adding a new negative option to confidence‑based questions
Treating the new negative option as a distinct potential risk, alongside “Not sure”
Throughout the year, we’ll monitor changes in sentiment patterns to understand the impact of the new scale. Once we have enough real‑world data, we’ll decide whether to expand to a fully balanced scale across all sentiment questions. See updates outlined below, with changes highlighted in bold.
Original | New |
How confident are you that you’re on the most suitable mortgage for you? Answer options: Couldn't be more confident Confident Quite confident Not sure (potential risk) | How confident are you that you’re on the most suitable mortgage for you? Answer options: Couldn't be more confident Confident Quite confident Not confident (potential risk) Not sure (potential risk) |
How confident are you that you are on-track to achieve the goals you are working towards with [adviser]? Answer options: Couldn't be more confident I’m on track Confident I’m on track Quite confident I’m on track Not sure (potential risk) | How confident are you that you are on-track to achieve the goals you are working towards with [adviser]? Answer options: Couldn't be more confident I’m on track Confident I’m on track Quite confident I’m on track Aware that I’m not on track and adjusting my goals or plan with my adviser Not confident I’m on track (potential risk) Not sure (potential risk) |
How confident are you that [first name] found you the most suitable insurance / protection policy for you? Answer options: Couldn't be more confident Confident Quite confident Not sure (potential risk) | How confident are you that [first name] found you the most suitable insurance / protection policy for you? Answer options: Couldn't be more confident Confident Quite confident Not confident (potential risk) Not sure (potential risk) |
3. Better support for identifying potentially vulnerable clients
What we learned
Firms and advisers have expressed mixed views: some want Elevation to play a larger role in being a second-line of defense in spotting vulnerable clients, while others are cautious about relying on surveys for sensitive indicators. The consensus was clear though - Elevation can support vulnerability insights when handled carefully, using existing data rather than intrusive new questions.
What’s changing
An updated definition of potentially vulnerable clients, using only existing structured questions, to inform data in the Consumer Duty report
Optional vulnerability tagging at the point of invitation for firms and networks
Development of AI‑powered analysis of free‑text responses to surface potential vulnerability indicators from client answers
When changes are happening
To protect month‑on‑month and quarter‑on‑quarter comparability, we’re releasing updates in phases:
Q1 2026
Updates to “topics discussed” and protection fee questions
Negative option added to confidence questions
UX improvements across the review journey
Foundations for free‑text AI analysis
Q2 2026
Launch of shorter, smarter repeat reviews
Vulnerability tagging and new client filters
Beta launch of free‑text vulnerability analysis
From Q3 onwards
We begin the next annual cycle to review the Elevation survey. As always we will continue to collect feedback from clients, advisers and firms throughout the year as well as aligning with any new FCA guidance.