A Comparative Study of User Ratings of Selected UPI Apps Using One-Way ANOVA

Author – Ankit Gurjar (021331025064)

Introduction-

·       Unified Payments Interface (UPI) has transformed digital payments in India by enabling fast, secure, and convenient transactions. With the rapid adoption of UPI, several mobile payment applications such as MobiKwik, Google Pay, Paytm, and PhonePe have gained popularity among users. However, users’ perceptions and satisfaction levels may vary across these platforms.

Objectives of the Study-

·       To understand the underlying phenomena of problem

Literature Review

1.      Reserve Bank of India (2022)
RBI reported that UPI has become the most widely used digital payment system in India due to its convenience, interoperability, and enhanced security features.

2.      Gupta & Arora (2021)
Gupta and Arora found that user satisfaction with UPI apps is mainly influenced by ease of use, transaction speed, and perceived trust, leading to differences in user preferences.

Data Collection-

·       Type of Data: Primary data

  • Method: Structured questionnaire (Google forms)
  • Sample Size: 40 (User ratings collected for selected UPI apps)
  • Scale Used: Rating scale (1 to 10)
  • Sampling Technique: Convenience sampling

Data Analysis-

Anova: Single Factor

         
             

SUMMARY

           

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

   

MobiKwik

40

240

6

0.51

   

Google Pay

40

220

5.5

9.44

   

Paytm

40

257

6.43

0.40

   

PhonePe

40

340

8.5

0.26

   
             
             

ANOVA

           

Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

Between Groups

239.2

3

79.73

30.06

2.15

2.66

Within Groups

413.78

156

2.65

     
             

Total

652.98

159

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion-

·       H₀: All UPI apps have the same mean rating.
H₁: Any one of the UPI apps has a different mean rating.

·       F = 30.06

·       F-Statistic: The calculated F-value (30.06) is significantly higher than the critical F-value (2.66), indicating substantial variation between group means

·       Since the p-value corresponding to F (2.15) is less than 0.05, we reject the Null Hypothesis (H₀) and accept the Alternative Hypothesis (H₁).

References-

·        https://www.rbi.org.in

·       https://www.npci.org.in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment