Buying a car can be an exercise in skepticism. Buyers have to deal with high-pressure showroom tactics, hidden fees, and the nagging suspicion that the seller holds all the cards.
Third-party automotive platforms were supposed to rewrite that narrative. In theory, moving the showroom online hands power back to the consumer. With a few taps, buyers can aggregate inventory across hundreds of miles, compare market values instantly, and pull comprehensive vehicle history reports before ever stepping foot on a lot.
Moving the search from showroom to living room hasn’t necessarily solved the trust problem; it may have just shifted it. Beyond a wider selection and easier filtering for the right car, consumers look for legitimacy when interacting with automotive websites.
Our latest research revisits a theme we’ve seen in this industry over the last decade: trust is still central to online experiences. Across the 11 third-party automotive platforms we benchmarked, buyers were most influenced by whether they trusted the data and felt they were getting a good deal. For people valuing a vehicle, data accuracy, privacy, and listing legitimacy mattered most. In short: when users don’t trust the data, they’re much more likely to abandon. The full findings and methodology are available in the downloadable report.
Benchmark Study Details
From March to April 2026, we asked 561 users of third-party automotive websites in the U.S. to recall their perceptions and most recent experience within the past year of one of these 11 third-party automotive websites and mobile applications (if applicable):
- Autotrader
- CARFAX
- CarGurus
- CarMax
- cars.com
- Carvana
- carweek.com
- Edmunds
- Kelley Blue Book
- MotorTrend
- TrueCar
Respondents completed the eight-item SUPR-Q® (which includes the Net Promoter Score), the two-item UX-Lite®, and the SUPR-Qm® standardized questionnaires, and answered questions about their brand attitudes, usage, and prior experiences.
Quality of the Website User Experience: SUPR-Q
The SUPR-Q is a standardized questionnaire widely used for measuring attitudes toward the quality of a website user experience. Its norms are computed from a rolling database of around 200 websites across dozens of industries. It’s become the industry standard for benchmarking website user experiences.
SUPR-Q scores are percentile ranks that tell you how a website’s experience ranks relative to other websites (50th percentile is average). The SUPR-Q provides an overall score as well as detailed scores for subdimensions of Usability, Trust, Appearance, and Loyalty.
The mean SUPR-Q across third-party automotive websites in this study sat at the 51st percentile, landing right in the middle of all benchmarked websites. However, this average masks a dramatic internal split: scores ranged from the 35th percentile for carweek.com to the 60th percentile for CARFAX. Looking at subscales reveals why the industry lands in the middle.
Usability Scores
Usability proved to be the primary bright spot, averaging at the 62nd percentile. Making a site easy to search and navigate is easily this industry’s strongest suit. The cars.com website led the industry at the 82nd percentile (82%), closely followed by Carvana (77%) and MotorTrend (71%). Conversely, carweek.com was at the 33rd percentile (33%) due to navigation friction and cluttered visual elements.
Comments related to usability on cars.com and carweek.com included:
“It has a great format that is incredibly pleasing to the eye, and searches are made so much easier using the bubbles at the top of the screen that act as a filter…” — cars.com
“Navigation can sometimes feel a bit clunky, especially when trying to filter or narrow down choices.” — carweek.com
Trust and Credibility Scores
The subscale of Trust/Credibility revealed a vulnerability across the sector. The group averaged at the 34th percentile, meaning the average third-party auto site performs worse than 66% of all websites in our database. Kelley Blue Book was the only platform to maintain strong consumer trust, leading the pack at the 57th percentile. Trust cratered across the rest of the set, bottoming out with carweek.com at the 15th percentile.
Comments related to credibility and trust on Kelley Blue Book, TrueCar, and CARFAX included:
“I like that I can check my car’s value without having to provide any personal information… Most people trust it; it has always had that reputation.” — Kelley Blue Book
“The most frustrating part is the immediate bombardment of phone calls and emails from dealerships the second I share my contact information for a price quote.” — TrueCar
“Paywalls what feels like everywhere… You have to pay to get certain information at times.” — CARFAX
Loyalty/Net Promoter Scores
The third-party automotive industry sits at a modest average NPS of +6%. Kelley Blue Book comfortably led the pack with an NPS of +34% (boasting 50% promoters).
The carweek.com website registered a surprising +18% NPS despite its low usability and credibility ranks. Qualitative feedback explains this paradox: while casual shoppers dislike carweek’s outdated aesthetic, a dedicated base of frequent car-shoppers praises it for directness, deep spec filtering, and a lack of annoying pop-up ads.
“The website has a very good reputation for purchasing cars. I actually know several people who have had no problem purchasing a car from one of the dealers listed on it.” — carweek.com
“carweek.com is extremely reliable in their business… The site is really efficient.” — carweek.com
The middle pack, MotorTrend (+9%), Edmunds (+5%), Autotrader (+2%), CarGurus (+2%), and cars.com (+2%), remained in positive territory, heavily weighed down by passive users. Only two platforms were in negative territory: CarMax (−6%) and Carvana (−23%, driven by a heavy 45% share of brand detractors).
Other comments related to NPS and brand loyalty include:
“I am fairly confident they provide accurate values for used vehicles. So I would most likely recommend them if someone was looking for a used vehicle or looking to find the value of their vehicle.” — Kelley Blue Book
“I would just use it to do a value check. There’s no way I’d tell anyone to buy anything from Carvana… like that’s a walking red flag. But in terms of just the website and not the actual company, yeah it’s fine.” — Carvana
Websites and Mobile App Usage
As part of this benchmark, we evaluated how respondents accessed third-party automotive platforms across desktop and mobile channels over the past year. All participants reported using desktop or laptop websites, which was a requirement for survey participation, while 79% reported using mobile websites and 41% used dedicated mobile apps. Across most competitors, engagement is sporadic, with the vast majority visiting only a few times per year, which isn’t too surprising given most people (except the autophiles) rarely want or need to look for cars. Not surprisingly then, mobile apps have the least usage, with 47% to 74% of participants having never downloaded them.
The carweek.com website presents a unique power-user anomaly: 38% of its desktop users and 31% of mobile site users visit a few times per week. Furthermore, 29% open the carweek.com mobile app multiple times a week, with another 22% opening it a few times a month. While casual browsers bounce due to visual clutter, its core user base finds enough unique value to keep returning at industry-leading rates.
The third-party automotive mobile apps had SUPR-Qm grades ranging from B− to C+, with cars.com leading (65.9, 74th percentile) and MotorTrend lagging (53.0, 52nd percentile).
Key Drivers of UX Quality
To better understand what affects SUPR-Q scores, we asked respondents to rate potentially important attributes of third-party automotive websites on a five-point scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). We then conducted key driver analyses (multiple regression) to see which attributes drive overall user experience scores. Because people visit these sites for different reasons, we analyzed two segments separately: buyers (searched inventory, compared vehicles, or contacted a dealer) and valuation users (looked up trade-in or private-sale values).
For buyers, eight attributes explained 62% of the variation in SUPR-Q scores, led by confidence in data accuracy, confidence in finding a good deal, and ease of finding important vehicle information. Figure 1 plots each driver’s importance against its top-box score. Drivers in the upper left are important but poorly rated, which makes data accuracy and deal confidence the biggest opportunities for improvement. Only 23% of buyers strongly agreed that listing data was accurate, and only 22% were confident they could find a good deal.
Figure 1: Scatterplot of importance and opportunity for improvement of key drivers among buyers.
UX Problems
We examined verbatim comments to better understand the reasons behind higher or lower scores.
Unpleasant and Cluttered Layouts Were Overwhelming
Visual clutter was the single most widespread complaint in the benchmark, affecting every competitor evaluated. Users routinely reported feeling overstimulated by dense page layouts, oversized listing cards, and disorganized interface elements that made basic car research exhausting.
“Their page can be overwhelming, and you can essentially get lost…” — Edmunds
“The site is not clean or easy to use… really filled with a lot of stuff.” — Kelley Blue Book
“It’s too busy! It needs to be cleaner and simpler.” — CarMax
“The information can become very cluttered, especially for people who aren’t as familiar with online shopping.” — cars.com
Figure 2 illustrates how visual clutter builds up immediately upon landing on the CarMax homepage. Before shoppers can even type a query into the primary search bar, they are confronted with a dense row of more than a dozen filter bubbles (SUVs, 2023 and newer, Under 50K miles, Under $20,000, $199 max transfer fee, AWD, Hybrids), a massive hero banner shouting “WANNA DRIVE?”, and a floating cookie consent box anchored in the lower-left corner. By stacking repetitive navigation links, promotional graphics, and policy pop-ups into a single viewport, the platform spikes visual noise and cognitive load, forcing users to navigate through secondary clutter before they can begin searching for a vehicle.
Figure 2: The CarMax homepage layout, demonstrating visual overstimulation caused by stacked filter chips, promotional hero banners, and floating policy pop-ups above the fold.
Search Navigation Bottlenecks Frustrated Active Shoppers
Cumbersome filtering logic and unpredictable search dropdowns emerged as another barrier across all platforms. While automotive websites host vast listing databases, shoppers frequently struggled to narrow results by exact parameters such as trim or year without the interface fighting them or resetting their choices.
“The menu for the search was a frickin nightmare!! It kept selecting what it wanted, not what I wanted.” — cars.com
“I wish the search feature allowed me to filter out more specific details. A filter OUT option would be helpful.” — Carvana
“The filters to find specific information can be very broken and difficult to use.” — carweek.com
“It doesn’t pull the search results that I ask for. Too influenced by dealers.” — Autotrader
Figure 3 demonstrates a glaring breakdown in search filter enforcement. Even though the user specifically checked the “Private seller” filter—which indicates that only ten private-party listings exist in the area—the platform populates the main search results with commercial dealership inventory, including “Corwin Honda” and “Fort Collins Dodge.” Small text at the top of the feed reveals why: the portal defaults to “sorted by premium dealers first,” allowing sponsored dealership inventory to override user-defined filter constraints. When a platform ignores explicit user preferences to prioritize paid dealer placements, it creates immediate search fatigue and erodes trust in the site’s filtering tools.
Figure 3: A search results grid demonstrating broken filter logic, where applying a “Private seller” filter still surfaces sponsored dealership listings due to “premium dealer” sorting priority.
Intrusive Pop-Ups and Sponsored Ads Disrupted Core Workflows
For media publications and ad-supported hubs, heavy monetization mechanics severely damaged the browsing experience. Excessive banner ads, sponsored listing overlays, and sticky pop-up modals frequently interrupted user tasks, driving massive frustration across many competitors.
“It is saturated with advertisements and ads… Like many publications, the ads will always be a turn off.” — MotorTrend
“The ads that pop up for ‘sponsored’ cars don’t fit my specifications. There are a handful of pop-ups that get annoying to deal with.” — Autotrader
“The ads are a little extreme, dealer offers when you just want a peek at the price.” — Kelley Blue Book
“There are popups and information can get buried.” — Edmunds
Figure 4 illustrates the compounding layers of visual clutter that obstruct basic browsing on Autotrader. A prominent “Ask Autotrader” AI assistant modal automatically pops up over the right side of the interface, obscuring listing cards and filter tools. Simultaneously, a persistent, high-contrast banner ad for Nissan spans the bottom of the viewport, cutting directly across vehicle thumbnail photos and pricing details. When sticky footers and pop-up widgets compete for screen real estate, users are forced to manually dismiss multiple non-essential elements just to view the search results they requested.
Figure 4: Multiple competing overlays on Autotrader, including an intrusive “Ask Autotrader” modal pop-up and a sticky bottom banner ad that partially obscure vehicle listings and filter controls.
Aggressive Lead Generation Triggered Severe Spam and Privacy Dread
Consumer trust eroded severely when platforms forced users to submit personal contact information to view vehicle estimates, unlock quotes, or connect with sellers. Participants voiced strong resentment after being subjected to immediate, unsolicited waves of dealership phone calls, texts, and emails.
“I was bombarded with emails and calls about ‘getting a quote,’ even from third parties.” — Edmunds
“I strongly disliked that they sold my contact information.” — Kelley Blue Book
“Too many dealer calls or messages.” — carweek.com
“I end up with spammy calls/texts/emails from sellers.” — CarGurus
Figure 5 highlights the transactional trade-offs consumers accept—and the accompanying privacy anxiety. The order screen on CARFAX requires users to choose a paid report package and input sensitive payment and contact details. While shoppers expect to provide personal information when completing a direct purchase, mandatory data capture triggers widespread skepticism. Consumers supplying their email, phone number, or payment method frequently wonder how that data will be utilized beyond the immediate report; specifically, whether their contact information will be packaged and sold as lead data to third-party dealerships, resulting in unwanted sales calls.
Figure 5: The CARFAX report checkout screen, illustrating mandatory personal data capture that sparks consumer privacy fears regarding lead monetization and third-party data sharing.
Pricing Friction and Low Distrust in Sellers Degraded Conversion
Finally, pricing transparency and dealer credibility issues created significant barriers to purchase conversion across eight of the platforms. Many participants complained about bait-and-switch pricing, non-negotiable markup fees, or uncompetitive trade-in offers. Meanwhile, fear of dishonest sellers or sketchy dealer tactics was a major friction point for others.
“Some of the offers seem to be unrealistically low. It might be a bait-and-switch scenario with a dealer.” — CarGurus
“Sometimes the prices feel a bit higher compared to other sites, and there isn’t much room for negotiation.” — CarMax
“[There are] limited public user reviews, a lot of scamming, [and] there is no direct purchasing support.” — carweek.com
“I don’t like that there are still some things you might have to contact the dealership selling the car directly… I’m trying to avoid dealership games.” — Autotrader
Figure 6 illustrates the exact visual cue that triggers this consumer skepticism. The CarGurus card features a 2017 BMW X3 xDrive28i with 74,185 miles marked down to $13,376 after a steep $1,622 price drop. Accompanied by prominent “Great Deal” and “Price includes fees” badges, a luxury SUV priced well below market value for its relatively low mileage often strikes shoppers as too good to be true. Rather than instilling buyer confidence, steep price cuts on premium models can raise immediate red flags regarding hidden mechanical issues, undisclosed dealer add-ons, or potential bait-and-switch tactics when contacting the lot.
Figure 6: A listing card on CarGurus advertising a heavily discounted 2017 BMW X3, demonstrating how drastic price drops and low valuations can trigger consumer suspicion rather than confidence.
Summary and Takeaways
Third-party automotive websites are major consumer hubs, serving millions of car buyers and sellers who rely on digital self-service tools to navigate high-stakes transactions. An analysis of the user experience across 11 major automotive platforms using benchmark data found:
- CARFAX and Kelley Blue Book lead; carweek.com and Carvana lag in overall perception. The competitors averaged a middle-of-the-road SUPR-Q score at the 51st percentile, ranging from CARFAX at the top (60th percentile) to carweek.com at the bottom (35th percentile). Net Promoter Scores averaged a modest 6%, with Kelley Blue Book leading the group in customer advocacy (34% NPS, boasting 50% promoters), while Carvana severely lagged the market in negative territory (−23% NPS, driven by a 45% share of brand detractors).
- Data accuracy, price confidence, and privacy drive UX scores. Key driver analyses revealed distinct priorities across consumer segments. For the Buyer segment, eight key drivers accounted for 62% of SUPR-Q variance, led by an equal three-way split between finding key vehicle information (10%), confidence in data accuracy (10%), and confidence in finding a good deal (10%). For Valuation users, seven drivers accounted for 55% of total variance, anchored by confidence in data accuracy (10%), data privacy safety (9%), and confidence in listing legitimacy (8%). Across both segments, baseline usability is solid, but lack of trust severely caps overall UX experience.
- The top opportunities for improvement are improving data accuracy, deal confidence, and data privacy. Plotting driver importance against top-box scores identified critical product bottlenecks (high importance, low ratings). For buyers, the primary opportunities are restoring confidence in data accuracy (23% average agreement) and deal confidence (22% average agreement). For valuation users, the primary opportunities are data accuracy (23% agreement), feeling safe sharing personal information (16% agreement), and confidence in listing legitimacy (23% agreement).
- Top frustrations center on cluttered layouts, search navigation friction, aggressive lead generation, and ad pop-ups. The qualitative verbatims revealed pervasive usability friction across platforms. Unpleasant, cluttered user interfaces and cumbersome search navigation were universal complaints, affecting all competitors evaluated in the open-ended analysis. Aggressive lead generation that triggers dealer spam was a major pain point on Edmunds (12%) and Kelley Blue Book (12%), while intrusive ad pop-ups and sponsored listings severely impaired content-heavy sites like MotorTrend (25%) and Autotrader (14%).
- Car shoppers and sellers struggle with a fundamental trust deficit. Quantitative and qualitative signals converge on a definitive industry trend: while third-party auto sites have perfected digital search filters and vehicle data entry, they face a severe erosion of consumer confidence. Quantitative metrics highlight widespread skepticism surrounding listing accuracy, deal fairness, and privacy protection. The qualitative “why” behind the numbers underscores consumer dread of dealer spam, invasive contact forms, and cluttered visual layouts. Platforms that would benefit most from a dedicated focus on visual decluttering, transparent valuation logic, and strict data privacy safeguards include carweek.com, Carvana, TrueCar, and Autotrader.
For more details, see the downloadable report.
