Digital Finance Adoption in Brazil: An Exploratory Analysis on Financial Apps and Digital Financial Literacy

Abstract

Digital transformation has fundamentally altered how individuals manage their finances. The expansion of financial technologies and the digitalization of banking services underscore the need for digital financial literacy, defined as the ability to safely use financial applications and make informed decisions within virtual environments. This study examined the perceptions of financial application use across age groups and their corresponding level of digital financial literacy. This exploratory study used a convenience sample of 41 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2025. The data were analyzed using content analysis and descriptive statistics. The findings indicated that most participants prioritized digital apps over traditional channels and expressed confidence in their use, although concerns about data security remained. Participants identified key advantages, including convenience, efficiency, and centralized access, yet few used apps for financial planning. Most respondents demonstrated an intermediate level of digital knowledge, with limited proficiency in executing complex financial tasks. Perceptions revealed both optimism and apprehension: while participants valued the practicality of digital tools, they also recognized risks such as fraud, exclusion of vulnerable groups, and technological dependence. The limited and non-representative sample limits generalization, suggesting the need for broader surveys. Enhanced public policies promoting digital financial education in Brazil are recommended.

1. Introduction

Digital transformation has fundamentally altered how individuals manage their finances. Advances in financial technologies (fintech) and the increasing digitalization of banking services require competencies that encompass not only traditional financial knowledge, but also proficiency in navigating digital platforms safely and autonomously. Consequently, digital financial literacy is crucial for facilitating financial inclusion among young adults, particularly concerning the critical use of payment apps, digital wallets, and credit platforms (Ferilli et al., 2024; Choung et al., 2023).

Digital financial literacy encompasses the skills, knowledge, and attitudes required to utilize digital financial services safely and to make informed financial decisions in virtual environments (Lyons & Kass-Hanna, 2021a; OECD, 2018). This multidimensional competency integrates both financial and digital literacy, including knowledge of digital financial products, fraud protection, practical application usage, and awareness of consumer rights within the digital context (Golden & Cordie, 2022; Choung et al., 2023).

Individuals with higher digital financial literacy tend to demonstrate better financial practices, financial well-being, and inclusion within digital banking systems (Choung et al., 2023; Uthaileang & Kiattisin, 2023). Conversely, lower digital financial literacy exacerbates social inequalities, particularly among vulnerable populations such as older adults, at-risk youth, and those with low levels of education. According to Lima et al. (2024), the lack of digital financial literacy significantly contributes to both digital and financial exclusion, hindering safe access to digital banking services.

The use of financial apps (e.g., digital wallets, investment platforms, and online banking) has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic due to restrictions on in-person banking access. While these tools provide convenience and accessibility, using such resources requires specific competencies to avoid pitfalls and risks (Yadav & Banerji, 2023), such as online scams, impulsive credit usage, easy access to high-cost credit or speculative products (Asif et al., 2024), and difficulties in interpreting platform-provided information (Panos & Wilson, 2020).

Considering these developments and associated challenges, it is crucial to investigate how citizens perceive the use of financial technology and their levels of knowledge about digital finance. User profiles may exhibit varying frequencies and patterns of app usage, as well as distinct levels of digital and financial literacy, influenced by technological familiarity, level of education, and prior experiences with financial services.

Accordingly, this study aimed to assess individuals’ perceptions across different age groups regarding financial app usage and digital financial literacy. More specifically, we sought to investigate the digital skills and knowledge applied to financial activities, analyze the degree of familiarity and confidence in using financial apps, identify the perceived barriers and challenges encountered in the use of digital financial services, and evaluate the levels of digital financial literacy.

Recent studies have reinforced the necessity of a multidimensional approach, highlighting that digital and financial competencies vary substantially across user profiles, shaping individual interactions with fintechs and economic decision-making (Martins & Teixeira, 2024).

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the theoretical framework, followed by an overview of the sample, a detailed presentation of the semi-structured interview, and the app of content analysis in Section 3. Subsequently, Section 4 presents the results, followed by the discussion and study implications and, lastly, the conclusions, highlighting the limitations and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review

In recent years, a growing number of studies have addressed digital financial literacy (Lyons & Kass-Hanna, 2021b; Putri et al., 2022; Rahayu et al., 2022; Setiawan et al., 2020). Digital financial literacy involves individuals’ ability to use digital financial services, requiring a certain level of digital literacy.

Digital financial services facilitate greater access to the financial system (Misati et al., 2024), enhancing global financial inclusion (Mpofu & Mhlanga, 2022) and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (Chitimira & Warikandwa, 2023). They can be defined as financial operations that employ digital technologies, including electronic money, mobile financial services, online banking, automated teller machines (ATMs), and branchless banking, offered by both banking and non-banking institutions (OECD, 2017). These encompass a range of monetary transactions such as depositing, withdrawing, transferring funds, as well as payments, credit, savings, pensions, and insurance. Additionally, these services include non-transactional functionalities (e.g., accessing financial information via digital devices).

Digital literacy is defined as the basic skill set required to interact with digital media, process and retrieve information, and participate in online platforms to create and disseminate knowledge. This competence also supports a broad range of professional computing skills (UNESCO, 2011). Nonetheless, few studies have sought to measure the impacts of digital literacy within the context of financial literacy and behavior. Lyons and Fontes (2021) analyzed the impact of financial literacy, digital literacy, and social media use on household financial well-being in the USA. Similarly, Kass-Hanna et al. (2022) evaluated the impact of financial literacy and digital literacy on households’ financial resilience. Both studies demonstrated that financial and digital literacy contribute to positive financial behaviors, long-term financial security (Lyons & Fontes, 2021), and foster financial inclusion and resilience (Kass-Hanna et al., 2022).

Other empirical studies have assessed digital financial literacy across different countries, including India (Prasad et al., 2018; Tony & Desai, 2020), Indonesia (Rahayu et al., 2022; Setiawan et al., 2020), and Malaysia (Liew et al., 2020). Liew et al. (2020) and Prasad et al. (2018) investigated levels of digital financial literacy among households and farmers, respectively. Tony and Desai (2020) examined the relationship between digital financial literacy and financial inclusion, while Rahayu et al. (2022) and Setiawan et al. (2020) analyzed its association with saving and purchasing behaviors.

Evidence regarding digital financial literacy across socioeconomic profiles is emerging but remains limited. Although Rahayu et al. (2022) and Setiawan et al. (2020) found that income influences digital financial literacy, findings on educational attainment are inconsistent. Setiawan et al. (2020) reported a significant effect of level of education, whereas Rahayu et al. (2022) concluded that there was no impact. Prasad et al. (2018) measured digital financial literacy by evaluating usage frequency and platform security, finding that graduates and individuals working in service occupations reported higher usage than non-graduates and individuals in other occupations. Furthermore, men and service-sector workers scored higher in the security dimension.

Digital technologies in the financial sector have the potential to expand service access, improve transaction efficiency and security, and stimulate competition among providers (Barroso & Laborda, 2022; Putrevu & Mertzanis, 2024). Nevertheless, their adoption depends on individuals’ willingness, digital competence, and availability of multiple access channels such as mobile apps, social media, and websites (Bellaaj, 2023; Wagner et al., 2020). Understanding user intentions is essential, as these preferences directly influence organizational adoption strategies.

3. Methods

This study employed a predominantly qualitative approach within a descriptive research design. Qualitative methods provide strategies that align with consumer needs and preferences by emphasizing the collection of participants’ experiences and perspectives (Burney et al., 2023). We utilized semi-structured interviews and content analysis. These interviews were designed to identify central elements experienced by participants related to the phenomenon studied (Chase, 2011). The interview questions were organized into four thematic sections derived from categories identified in the literature, in addition to a set of sociodemographic profile questions. The first thematic section focused on personal financial management. It included questions concerning the use of different channels such as self-service terminals, 24-h banking facilities, physical branches, expense management, savings capacity, and emergency funds. This thematic section also included questions on financial education from parents and family members.

The second thematic section investigated the use of digital financial apps, exploring usage patterns, perceptions of security, and difficulties with the apps. Two questions addressed gaming and betting. Additional items assessed satisfaction with the apps and whether they were employed for financial planning and control. The third thematic section presented a set of activities that could be performed using digital financial apps and asked participants to indicate their competence which each, using response options of “Yes,” “No,” and “Never tried.” These questions were adapted from Vieira et al. (2024).

The fourth and final thematic section consisted of open-ended questions designed to elicit participants’ subjective perceptions of financial digitalization, such as: “Would you like to tell us more about your financial app usage?” “In particular, how do you think this will be in the future?” and “What are the advantages and risks of finance becoming increasingly digital?”.

A convenience sample was utilized, targeting individuals across age groups based on generational differences in perceptions and use of financial digitalization tools (Garai-Fodor et al., 2022). Generational contrasts were further supported by Vij and Pandoi (2025), who found that younger individuals are generally more receptive to innovations due to greater familiarity with the digital environment, while older individuals often exhibited resistance stemming from a lack of knowledge and trust. The final sample consisted of 41 participants, aged 18–71 years. Forty-one participants were included in the study based on age criteria to ensure accessibility. Specifically, individuals were invited to participate, and those who accepted were included. Thematic saturation was achieved, with interviews continuing until no new themes emerged. The interviews concluded upon recognizing thematic saturation. After the point where no further information could be gathered, additional interviews were conducted for confirmation, and data collection was then concluded.

The interviews were conducted in May 2025. Participants were recruited through direct verbal contact by interviewers and interviewed by trained researchers using a semi-structured script. The interview script ensured consistent and focused data collection. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Word’s transcription tool. The research was approved by the institutional ethics committee, and all participants signed an informed consent form.

Quantitative data were organized in spreadsheets and presented descriptively. Qualitative data underwent content analysis. To enhance rigor in the qualitative analysis, a coding framework was developed, and systematic content analysis was used to identify and compare recurring themes, in accordance with criteria for thematic saturation (Hair et al., 2005; Baptista & Campos, 2018). Content analysis was used to determine both the explicit and underlying meanings in participants’ responses, highlighting essential aspects while minimizing secondary elements.

In addition, descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, and means, were applied to assess participants’ levels of financial knowledge. Based on mean scores, each participant’s digital financial literacy was classified as low, intermediate, or high, following the standards proposed by Chen and Volpe (1998).

4. Empirical Results

The sociodemographic and economic profile of participants is presented in

Table 1. Participants’ demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Variable	Categories	n	%
Sex	Male	16	39.02
	Female	25	60.98
Age (years)	18–30	14	34.15
	30–50	12	29.27
	>50	15	36.59
Occupation	Student	8	19.51
	Teacher	7	17.07
	Shopkeeper	3	7.32
	Public servant	3	7.32
	Retired	2	4.88
	Intern	2	4.88
	Military police officer	2	4.88
	Others	16	39.02
Level of education	Elementary school education	8	19.51
	High school education	3	7.32
	Incomplete higher education	10	24.39
	Undergraduate degree	10	24.39
	Graduate degree	10	24.39
Living arrangement	Living alone	7	17.07
	With spouse (no children)	6	14.63
	With spouse and children	11	26.83
	With children (no spouse)	5	12.20
	With parents (one or both)	6	14.63
	Others	6	14.63
Income	Salary	17	41.46
	Retirement pension (own or family members’)	7	17.07
	Scholarship/internship/student aid	6	14.63
	Family income (parents, spouse, fiancé, etc.)	6	14.63
	Mixed income (salary + other sources)	4	9.76
	Other income sources (investments, self-employment, etc.)	1	2.44
Dependents	None	20	48.78
	Yes (children, spouse, parents)	19	46.34
	Provides help, but no direct dependents	1	2.44

Source: Research data (2025).

. The sample consisted of 41 participants from Brazil, mostly female (60.98%), with a relatively balanced age composition: 34.15% were between 18 and 30 years old, 29.27% were between 30 and 50 years old, and 36.59% were >50 years old.

The sample demonstrated significant occupation diversity. Students (19.51%) and teachers (17.07%) constituted the most represented subgroups, followed by public servants and shopkeepers (both at 7.32%). Other occupations appeared less frequently but collectively underscored the sample’s socioeconomic diversity. The level of education was relatively high, with 24.39% having incomplete higher education, 24.39% possessing undergraduate degrees, and 24.39% possessing graduate degrees. Only 19.51% finished elementary school, and 7.32% completed high school. This diversity enhances the robustness of the analysis, as Prasad et al. (2018) demonstrated that the level of education and occupation are related to a higher frequency of use and greater perceived security of digital financial platforms.

Regarding family structure, 26.83% resided with a spouse and children, 17.07% lived alone, and 14.63% lived either with parents or with a spouse without children. Concerning income sources, 41.46% of participants reported salary as their main income source, followed by retirement pension (17.07%) and student aid or internship stipends (14.63%). Family income (from parents, spouses, etc.) also accounted for 14.63%, while 9.76% reported mixed income sources, and 2.44% cited alternative sources, including investments or entrepreneurial activities.

Analysis of dependents revealed that 48.78% had no dependents, in contrast to 46.34% participants who reported direct dependents, such as children, spouses, or parents. One individual (2.44%) expressed providing some financial assistance without direct dependency. The number of dependents is pertinent, as it may influence financial management behaviors and the adoption of digital tools for family financial planning.

Overall, the sample profile is markedly heterogeneous, a suitable characteristic for the study’s objectives. Evidence in the literature indicates that occupation and education may affect the use of apps, as well as levels of financial literacy.

The frequency of traditional in-person financial service usage over the past six months is shown in

Table 2. Frequency of different in-person financial service channels used in the last six months.

Variable	Categories	n	%
In the last six months, how many times did you visit a bank branch?	None	26	63.41
	Once	9	21.95
	Twice	3	7.32
	Three times	2	4.88
	Four times	2	4.88
	Six times	2	4.88
In the last six months, how many times did you use an ATM?	None	17	41.46
	Once	6	14.63
	2–4 times	4	9.76
	5–10 times	4	9.76
	Six times (monthly)	3	7.32
	>10 times	3	7.32
	Few times	4	9.76
In the last six months, how many times did you use a 24-h ATM?	None	32	78.05
	Once	2	4.88
	2–5 times	1	2.44
	Six times (monthly)	3	7.32
	Daily	1	2.44
	Yes (usage declared, no number)	2	4.88
In the last six months, how many times did you visit a lottery agency to pay bills, withdraw money, or check your account balance?	None	33	80.49
	Once	1	2.44
	2–6 times	1	2.44
	>6 times	3	7.32
	Yes (no number specified)	3	7.32

ATM: Automated teller machine. Source: Research data (2025).

. The results demonstrate a trend towards decreased use of traditional in-person services for financial transactions. Notably, 63.41% of respondents did not visit bank branches during the period, while 21.95% reported a single visit. Frequency higher than two visits were minimally represented. The use of lottery agencies was even less common, with 80.49% of participants reporting no usage in the preceding six months.

These results corroborate well-established evidence in the literature indicating that expanding access to and usability of fintech, particularly through digital app, has contributed to the progressive substitution of in-person channels by digital alternatives, specifically in certain contexts (OECD, 2018; Yadav & Banerji, 2023). This phenomenon was increasingly relevant in the post-pandemic period, as social distancing accelerated the adoption of digital services and led to significant changes in daily financial practices.

The usage pattern of ATMs was more varied. Although 41.46% of participants reported not using these terminals, the remaining participants indicated frequencies ranging from a single use (14.63%) to more than ten uses (7.32%). These findings suggest that, despite the rise of financial apps, a segment of users still requires in-person services to withdraw cash or perform physical transactions. This persistence may be attributed to limitations in digital payment infrastructure in specific locations or a preference for retaining part of their income in cash.

Usage of 24 h ATMs followed a similar pattern to lottery agencies, with 78.05% of participants stating they had not used this service recently. Only a small proportion indicated monthly or occasional use. This pattern is likely an indicator that, even among in-person financial service channels, those considered less personalized or secure still exhibit lower levels of engagement. Panos and Wilson (2020) highlighted that trust is a central determinant in selecting financial services channels.

Collectively, these results indicate that a substantial proportion of respondents is autonomously using digital financial services, reducing the need for in-person interactions with financial institutions. This behavior aligns with studies by Choung et al. (2023) and Lyons and Kass-Hanna (2021a), which emphasized the relationship between higher digital financial literacy and the conscious use of digital platforms for financial management and planning.

Analysis of participants’ financial habits revealed both positive behaviors and ongoing challenges related to financial control (

Table 3. The participants’ financial habits.

Variable	Categories	n	%
Spending related to income	Spends less than what they earn	23	56.10
	Spends exactly what they earn	9	21.95
	Spends more than what they earn	7	17.07
	Varies (sometimes more, sometimes less)	2	4.88
Emergency fund	Does not have emergency funds	10	24.39
	Has emergency funds, but did not specify its duration	9	21.95
	<3 months	10	24.39
	3–6 months	2	4.88
	6 months to 1 year	4	9.76
	>1 year	6	14.63
Has a savings account (and saving frequency)	Does not have a savings account	11	26.83
	Has a savings account, but did not specify their savings frequency/no longer saves	7	17.07
	Has a savings account, but rarely saves/almost never/1 or 2 times per year	4	9.76
	Has a savings account, saves quarterly	1	2.44
	Has a savings account, saves monthly	17	41.46
Parents talked about money/finances during their childhood.	No	21	51.22
	Yes	20	48.78

Source: Research data (2025).

). Most (56.1%) reported spending less than their income, reflecting a financially healthy attitude in terms of budget management. Conversely, 17.07% stated that they spend more than their earnings, and 21.95% indicated that they spend exactly what they earn. These behaviors may signal potential indebtedness or difficulties in accumulating financial reserves, especially under unforeseen circumstances.

The distribution of the emergency fund among participants is relatively distributed. Approximately 24.39% reported having no financial reserves, while an additional 24.39% indicated possessing a reserve but did not specify its duration. A minority (14.63%) declared maintaining a reserve sufficient for more than one year, suggesting greater financial stability or planning. Although a significant portion of participants demonstrated some degree of financial precaution, the fragility of the emergency fund among nearly half of the sample underscores the importance of developing robust financial planning skills, particularly through digital tools.

Concerning saving practices in savings accounts, 41.46% of participants reported saving monthly, indicating regular capital formation. However, 26.83% lacked a savings account, and 17.07% stated that they have one but did not specify their savings frequency. Other respondents reported saving infrequently or only on occasion.

Regarding familial financial socialization, approximately half of the participants (48.8%) indicated that their parents discussed financial matters with them during childhood. These discussions addressed topics including the importance of saving, avoiding overspending, managing expenses, and incentives such as allowances. For example: “Yes, we always talked [about it], especially about not spending more than you should and staying within your budget” (Participant 11); “Yes [they encouraged saving money and gave me an allowance]” (Participant 25); “Yes [my mother talked a lot [about it], I had an allowance and weekly incentives]” (Participant 35).

In contrast, 51.2% of participants reported that such conversations did not occur at home, either directly or indirectly. Example responses include: “None of that was ever discussed” (Participant 37); “My parents never talked to me about this; I learned by learning from my mother’s mistakes” (Participant 38). A lack of parental financial education may hinder these individuals’ integration into the digital financial environment, as parents have a significant impact on their children’s financial knowledge and skills (Qamar et al., 2023). According to Bhatia et al. (2021), parental influence may arise from direct instruction, behavioral modeling, and serving as financial role models.

The participants’ interactions with financial apps and aspects related to digital behaviors are shown in

Table 4. Participants’ interactions with financial apps and digital behavior.

Variable	Categories	n	%
Length of time using financial apps (years)	1–3	10	24.39
	4–5	5	12.20
	>5	26	63.41
Believes that personal data is secure	Yes	24	58.54
	No or has doubts/concerns	17	41.46
Victim of fraud while using financial apps	No	7	17.07
	Yes	34	82.93
Feels insecure using financial apps	No	30	73.17
	Yes	11	26.83
Action taken when having difficulty using financial apps	Contacts the bank (manager, customer support, bank branch)	13	31.71
	Requests help from family members or acquaintances	10	24.39
	Searches on the Internet/tutorials	8	19.51
	Uses the app’s tools	4	9.76
	No difficulties reported	6	14.63
Uses apps for financial control	Yes	26	63.41
	No	15	36.59
Has already used sports betting sites	Yes	4	9.76
	No	37	90.24
Has already gambled	Yes	5	12.20
	No	36	87.80

Source: Research data (2025).

. Most participants (63.41%) have used financial apps for >five years, while 36.59% have engaged with them for at least one year. Extended familiarity may contribute to the development of practical competence in the digital environment, which relates to digital financial literacy as both an operational and attitudinal skill (Lyons & Kass-Hanna, 2021a).

Despite increased experience, confidence in data security remained low. While 58.54% of participants believed their data was protected, 41.46% expressed doubts or concerns, highlighting the persistence of barriers related to perceived digital risk. Panos and Wilson (2020) discussed this apprehension, emphasizing that financial literacy can mitigate vulnerabilities in digital environments. Additionally, 17.07% of participants reported experiencing fraud when using these apps, potentially contributing to distrust.

Operational security predominates among participants: 73.17% reported not feeling insecure when using the apps, suggesting high functional autonomy. These results align with studies identifying trust as a key factor in the adoption of financial apps (Appiah & Agblewornu, 2025).

Of the 41 participants, 26 utilized (63.4%) apps for financial management. The mean satisfaction was approximately 8.4 for these users. Conversely, among the 15 participants who did not use financial app, the most frequently cited alternative strategies were: mental notes or intuitive control (n = 5), spreadsheets (n = 3), notebook records (n = 1), and a combination of Nubank’s caixinhas feature with spreadsheets (n = 1). Some also reported no financial control or relied on empirical and occasional methods, such as recording only bills due. Not using financial apps for planning and financial management may result from various barriers, including concerns about security, unfamiliarity with two-factor authentication and other protective measures, as well as a lack of trust in digital platforms. Additional obstacles include the perceived complexity of the app, limited digital literacy, and difficulties in navigating or understanding the app’s features.

This diversity in financial control methods underscores the role of digital financial literacy in promoting the use of structured planning tools. Choung et al. (2023) found that increased digital proficiency positively influences financial well-being and the adoption of organized financial practices.

All participants reported having Pix, demonstrating widespread adoption of this technology. Regarding proximity-based digital wallets, 30 reported using this resource, while 8 reported not using it, and 3 provided no clear information. Patterns of physical cash usage varied: 13 participants never carried cash, 11 always carried cash, and 17 carried cash only occasionally, such as rarely or in small amounts. The high utilization of digital resources and low reliance on physical resources indicate that financial digitalization is an irreversible trend.

This study also assessed exposure to gambling and sports betting. Only 9.76% of participants engaged with digital sports betting platforms, and 12.20% had participated in games of chance.

In the third thematic section of the interview, participants received a list of financial activities available in financial apps and were asked about their ability to perform them. The response frequencies and percentages are summarized in

Table 5. Participants’ ability to perform financial activities via mobile apps.

Activity (Summary)	No (%)	Yes (%)	Never Tried (%)
Make credit card purchases	2.44	97.56	0.00
Make debit card purchases	2.44	97.56	0.00
Perform real-time payment transactions	0.00	100.0	0.00
Check current account balance in digital channels	0.00	100.0	0.00
Check account statements in digital channels	2.44	97.56	0.00
Pay bills on digital channels	2.44	95.12	2.44
Update your registration on digital channels	12.20	78.05	9.76
Perform a transfer between accounts in different institutions, electronic funds transfer, on digital channels.	12.20	73.17	14.63
Change withdrawal and transfer limits on digital channels	12.20	85.37	2.44
Activate an account on digital channels.	17.07	70.73	12.20
Locate payment proof for a bill, transfer, or real-time payment on digital channels.	4.88	87.80	7.32
Change the access password on digital channels	14.63	75.61	9.76
Activate/deactivate the card for domestic purchases on digital channels.	14.63	75.61	9.76
Create a virtual credit card on digital channels	19.51	70.73	9.76
Open an account at a digital bank	19.51	68.29	12.20
Register a real-time payment key	7.32	92.68	0.00
Withdraw at an ATM terminal	12.20	87.80	0.00
Make online purchases via real-time payment	2.44	97.56	0.00
Enroll biometric (fingerprint) access	4.88	90.24	4.88
Unblock the app through self-service	17.07	73.17	9.76
Find the service channels (phone, email, WhatsApp) on digital channels	12.20	82.93	4.88
Install a banking app on your mobile phone	7.32	92.68	0.00
Use digital channels without the help of another person	7.32	90.24	2.44
Communicate with the manager through digital channels or WhatsApp	19.51	65.85	14.63
Identify the fees charged by the bank/brokerage on digital channels	24.39	70.73	4.88
Activate/deactivate the card for international purchases on digital channels	17.07	68.29	14.63
Perform an investment or redemption in investment funds or agribusiness letter of credit on digital channels	14.63	70.73	14.63
Perform an investment or redemption in government bonds on digital channels	39.02	17.07	43.90
Perform an investment or redemption in savings on digital channels	31.71	58.54	9.76
Perform an investment or redemption in bank deposit certificates on digital channels	36.59	46.34	17.07
Buy and sell stocks on digital channels	63.41	14.63	21.95
Buy and sell foreign currency on digital channels	60.98	7.32	31.71
Buy and sell derivatives (call/put options, futures market, etc.) on digital channels	65.85	7.32	26.83
Simulate financing (car, house, etc.) on digital channels	68.29	4.88	26.83
Contract a loan on digital channels	36.59	31.71	31.71
Contract insurance on digital channels	41.46	19.51	39.02
Release access to open finance (sharing your data between financial institutions) on digital channels	41.46	34.15	24.39
Deposit checks on digital channels	68.29	2.44	29.27
Withdraw without a card at the ATM terminal	43.90	36.59	19.51
Generate a code in the app to withdraw without the card	48.78	26.83	24.39

ATM: Automated teller machine. Source: Research data (2025).

.

The results indicate high proficiency in basic and intermediate functionalities of financial apps, particularly on operations such as PIX transfers (100%), checking account balances and statements (97.56%), and payments via bank slip and card. However, proficiency decreases substantially for tasks involving greater complexity or risk, including investing in stocks, derivatives, or obtaining insurance and loans. This decline is evidenced by the high proportion of “never tried” responses. Although participants’ partial integration into the digital financial ecosystem, there remain significant limitations regarding autonomy and the scope of usage, especially in relation to advanced digital financial literacy.

To assess the participants’ digital financial literacy, the average score was calculated across forty activities listed in Table 5. Responses of “no” and “never tried” received a score of zero, while “yes” responses received a score of one. Thus, the digital financial literacy score ranges from zero (an individual who does not feel capable of performing any of the activities) to one (an individual who answered “yes” to all activities). The results are presented in

Table 6. Level of digital financial literacy.

Digital Financial Literacy	Classification	N	%
Low	<0.6	10	24.39
Intermediate	0.6–0.8	25	60.98
High	>0.8	6	14.63

Source: Research data (2025).

.

Based on the classification proposed by Chen and Volpe (1998), most participants (60.98%) displayed an intermediate level of digital financial literacy, indicating proficiency with common app functionalities such as transfers, account inquiries, and payments. In contrast, 24.39% exhibited a low level of knowledge, suggesting difficulties in using digital tools safely and effectively. Only 14.63% demonstrated high knowledge, which shows that despite the widespread adoption of financial apps, a substantial proportion of users lack advanced digital-financial skills necessary for handling complex or strategic financial tasks in the digital environment.

When asked to evaluate their satisfaction with using financial apps, participants indicated a high level of satisfaction; approximately 50% assigned the highest score of 10, and >80% rated their abilities between 8 and 10. The absence of scores < 5 may reflect a positive perception of participants regarding their own digital competence in using financial apps.

At the conclusion of the interviews, participants shared their perspectives on the advantages, risks, and prospects of digital financial apps. Their distinct perceptions about the use of financial apps, organized into thematic categories, are presented in

Table 7. Participants’ perceptions of the advantages of using financial apps.

Category	Representative Statements
Practicality and convenience	“The advantage is that you don’t even need to leave the house, right? You can do it anytime.” (7); “It makes everyday life so much easier.” (20); “It’s been a long time since I handled physical money or went to the bank.” (32); “We can pay bills right from home.” (8).
Speed and efficiency	“I do everything on my phone from home.” (11); “The advantage is the speed, simplicity, and convenience.” (27); “It really speeds up life a lot.” (19).
Control and autonomy	“You have control in your hands.” (20); “Convenience in your hands, on your phone.” (17).
Centralization and usability	“I use Nubank, everything is centralized there, because it’s easy.” (4); “Most apps are intuitive and easy to use.” (implied in several statements)
Technological progress	“Technology is wonderful.” (15); “With artificial intelligence, it will keep evolving.” (5); “There will be integration between apps.” (12).
Reduced bureaucracy	“You don’t have to worry about bank hours.” (15) “Before, I had to fill out many checks… now it’s all in the app.” (15)
Accessibility to financial services	“Before, I had to go to the branch just to transfer money. Now I can do it all on the app.” (23)
Support for digital inclusion (younger generations)	“Generation Z is more used to using these apps.” (37)

Source: Research data (2025).

,

Table 8. Participants’ perceptions of the disadvantages and risks in the use of financial apps.

Category	Representative Statements
Frauds, scams, and cybersecurity risks	“It’s dangerous if your phone is stolen and all your data is taken.” (11); “You have to be very careful not to fall for scams.” (23); “Hackers.” (20, 36); “Sometimes fake messages arrive pretending to be from the bank.” (7); “The risk is this issue with hackers.” (20); “There are scams reported on TV every day.” (11).
Insecurity and lack of guarantees	“We don’t have a 100% guarantee.” (19); “There’s a lack of trust in digital systems.” (28); “If something goes wrong, there’s no one to talk to.” (9).
Dependence on digital infrastructure	“It’s good because of the convenience, but bad because of we’re dependent on the internet.” (10); “We end up being hostages of the system.” (37).
Impulsiveness and reduced financial control	“We spend very quickly… on impulse.” (31, 34); “Everything became easy, including spending.” (27)
Exclusion of older adults or less experience users	“Older people have difficulty with digital accounts.” (24, 30, 33); “My grandmother can’t do any of this.” (32).
Lack of physical customer service	“If a bigger problem happens, you can’t solve it without a branch.” (9); “Nubank, for example, doesn’t have a physical branch.”.
Exposure of personal data	“We end up exposing a lot of data in the apps.” (2); “All our information is there.” (29)
Excessive digitalization	“There will come a point when controlling money will be out of our hands.” (19); “I think it takes away people’s freedom.” (19).

Source: Research data (2025).

and

Table 9. Participants’ future perspectives on financial apps.

Perspective Category	Representative Statements
Replacement of physical money	“More and more, we will use less cash and more virtual money.” (17) “Over time, it won’t be possible to have physical money anymore.” (31, 34, 35) “I believe that at some point, money might fall into disuse.” (1)
Expansion of apps	“I think the trend is to use them more and more.” (7) “It will all be virtual.” (18) “Used more and more.” (28) “The trend is that the use will increase even further.” (10)
Technological advancement and integration	“I think they will all become easier to use.” (4) “There will be integration between apps regulated by the government.” (12) “It will continue like this, just with more technology, maybe artificial intelligence.” (5) “Banks will follow this trend.” (37)
Decline of physical banks branches	“I think bank branches are going extinct.” (25) “Banks will become increasingly digital and no longer physical.” (27) “Nubank, for example, doesn’t have a physical bank.” (9)
Generational adoption	“New generations are more accustomed to using the apps.” (37) “Generation Z is already used to them” (implicit in various statements)
Reduction of human interaction	“There will be less human contact.” (26) “Unfortunately, that’s how it will be, but I’m old-fashioned.” (11)
Optimism about technological advancement	“It only makes our lives better.” (36) “I think using cell phones will end as well, it will be through fingerprint or iris recognition.” (23) “The trend is toward more applications.” (24)
Criticism and reservations about the digital future	“I view it with reservation… it takes away people’s freedom and everyone becomes dependent on a click from someone who is not you.” (19) “It’s practical, but problematic because of internet dependence.” (10) “It is very prone to failures and lack of control.” (19)

Source: Research data (2025).

.

The primary advantages identified by the participants are associated with practicality, convenience, and speed offered by the financial apps. The ability to conduct financial transactions without the need for physical displacement and at any time was frequently emphasized, reflecting a strong preference for flexibility and autonomy in daily management. Other commonly mentioned aspects included feeling in control, financial operation centralization through intuitive platforms, and perception of technology as a facilitator for simplifying banking methods. Moreover, some participants highlighted bureaucracy reduction, increased access to financial services, and ease of use among younger users, suggesting broader digital inclusion.

The disadvantages and risks associated with financial apps are summarized in Table 8. Concerns regarding digital security were the most recurring element, with explicit mentions of fraud, scams, data theft, and cyberattacks. These concerns reveal a high level of distrust in the protection of personal information within digital environments.

Significant limitations were the lack of guarantees and in-person support for technical issues, reliance on internet connectivity, and risk of impulsive and uncontrolled use of financial resources. Furthermore, participants noted that vulnerable populations, such as older adults and individuals with low digital literacy, may face exclusion, exacerbating existing inequalities in access to banking services. Concerns were raised about the excessive exposure of personal data and the perception of over-digitalization, which may compromise individual autonomy and freedom.

Expectations for the future of financial apps showed a predominantly favorable outlook on the expansion and consolidation of these technologies (Table 9). Participants anticipate a gradual transition from physical currency to digital transactions, accompanied by system enhancements, improved platform integration, and the increased use of artificial intelligence.

The perception that physical bank branches tend to disappear, or at least progressively lose their relevance, is significant given the consolidation of digital channels as primary platforms for financial transactions. This trend is particularly evident among younger generations, who demonstrate familiarity with and a strong preference for technological solutions from their initial interactions with the financial system.

5. Discussion

Participants highlighted the practicality, convenience, and speed of financial apps, enabling transactions to be conducted at any time without the need for physical presence. Other key advantages included a sense of control over finances, centralized and intuitive financial management, reduced bureaucracy, and increased access to services. These benefits, particularly valued by younger users, reflect a rise in digital financial inclusion.

Conversely, participants identified key risks associated with reliance on internet connectivity, the lack of in-person support, potential impulsive financial behavior, the exclusion of vulnerable groups such as older adults and individuals with low digital literacy, and issues related to data privacy and excessive digitalization, which could potentially undermine autonomy. These findings align with the literature on the advantages and challenges of digitalization in financial services (Koskelainen et al., 2023; Asif et al., 2024).

User perceptions indicate that a country’s ability to maximize the benefits of digital financial services and manage associated risks largely depends on the population’s level of digital financial literacy. However, the OECD has indicated that the growth of digital financial services does not always correspond with higher levels of digital or financial literacy, a discrepancy observed even among younger populations (OECD, 2017). Consequently, the OECD (2018) recommends that governments implement targeted financial education policies focused on digital financial services and systematically assess their effectiveness.

In Brazil, governmental strategies such as the incorporation of instant payments (e.g., Pix), the open banking, disbursement of social benefits via digital accounts, and the launch of DREX have encouraged the adoption of digital financial services and aimed to enhance financial inclusion (Banco Central do Brasil, 2020; Vargas & dos Santos, 2020). Nevertheless, the success of these initiatives requires citizens, including those previously unbanked, to develop new financial and digital knowledge. Thus, there is an increasing need for public agents to design effective strategies that foster digital financial education, especially for these populations.

Although Brazil’s recent curricular reforms have incorporated financial literacy as a cross-cutting theme, this reform did not give special attention to digital financial literacy. Therefore, future curricular adjustments are necessary. Expanding teacher training in both financial and digital literacy is also crucial to fostering classroom discussions on topics such as app usability and data security. The number of fintechs and exclusively digital banks operating without physical branches is rapidly increasing in the country. These financial actors, along with governmental and civil society organizations, share responsibility for enhancing the population’s digital financial literacy, improving user experience, app usability, and financial data security.

6. Final Considerations

Implementing new digital technologies in the financial sector has the potential to expand access to financial services and accelerate transactions (Koskelainen et al., 2023). Nevertheless, these technologies also introduce new risks and intensify existing ones. However, the OECD argues that expanding digital financial services is not always accompanied by increasing levels of digital and financial literacy, particularly among younger populations (OECD, 2017).

An adequate level of digital financial literacy is essential for families to fully benefit from the positive effects of digital financial services digitalization. Thus, understanding how different population profiles engage with digital financial apps is fundamental for identifying vulnerabilities and informing strategies to mitigate associated risks and challenges. The absence of digital financial literacy can lead to financial exclusion, especially among vulnerable populations.

This qualitative study sought preliminary evidence on the perceptions of users across different age groups about financial apps. The results showed that most participants rarely use traditional banking methods and prioritize digital apps. Most are confident that they know how to use these apps but have some uncertainties regarding the security of their data.

Despite widespread use of financial apps, a significant proportion of participants do not utilize them for financial control and planning. These findings align with ta broader lack of a financial planning culture within the population.

Most respondents demonstrated an intermediate level of digital financial literacy; only a few exhibited advanced knowledge necessary for making complex financial decisions.

The perceptions collected through open responses revealed ambivalent attitudes toward the digitalization of financial services. Participants essentially recognize benefits related to convenience, speed, and centralization provided by financial apps. However, they also expressed concerns about data security, digital exclusion of vulnerable groups, and loss of in-person interactions. Anticipation about the intensification of these technologies was also exhibited, accompanied by criticisms associated with potential risks stemming from excessive digitalization.

This study’s key limitation concerns the sample, consisting of a small group of Brazilian participants selected through convenience sampling. This method reduces external validity and limits the generalizability of the findings. Since studies on digital financial literacy are still incipient in the Brazilian context, future studies should conduct surveys with more representative samples. Research investigating the antecedents of financial app usage may provide deeper insights into consumer behavior. Future investigations are also encouraged to assess the impact of digital financial literacy on the usability and effectiveness of digital financial services. Developing more sophisticated measures for assessing digital financial literacy is also advisable, as current indices with equal weighting may oversimplify results and inflate knowledge scores.