Scale. Optimize. Succeed.

Home  ›  Resources  ›  Statistics  ›  Cart Abandonment

Cart Abandonment Statistics, and What Each Reason Costs to Fix

The 70% figure is the most quoted statistic in eCommerce and one of the most misunderstood. It is an average across fifty studies with different definitions, it includes people who were never going to buy, and on its own it tells you nothing about your own store. The reasons underneath it are far more useful, and every one of them has a fix.

FIGURES

12 figures

SOURCES

3 primary sources

LAST REVIEWED

September 2026

NEXT REVIEW

March 2027

Hands on a laptop showing an online shopping basket

Abandonment is a symptom. The reasons underneath it are the diagnosis.

The rate, and what sits inside it

Three numbers you need together. Quoting the first without the third is how this statistic gets misused.

70.22%

average documented cart abandonment rate, averaged across 50 separate published studies.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · Mixed geographies · studies 2006–2025 · rolling average

50

separate studies sit behind that average, which is why it is stable and also why it is blunt.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · Mixed geographies · 2006–2025 · study count

42%

of US shoppers said they abandoned simply because they were browsing and not ready to buy — a segment excluded from the reasons below.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · United States · browsing-only abandonment

Why 70% is not a target and not a problem statement

A shopper adding something to a basket is not the same as a shopper deciding to buy. In eCommerce the basket doubles as a shortlist, a price check and a wishlist.

Roughly four in ten abandonments are people browsing rather than buying, by their own account. That behaviour is not recoverable and it is not a defect. Chasing it with discount emails trains customers to abandon deliberately, which is the one outcome worse than the original abandonment.

Different platforms also define a cart differently, which is why two stores can report rates twenty points apart while behaving identically.

Shopper pausing mid-purchase with a payment card and laptop at home

The useful question is not how many abandoned, but how many intended to buy and could not.

Every stated reason, ranked

From shoppers who abandoned for a reason other than browsing. Note how many are operational rather than persuasive.

40%

abandoned because extra costs — shipping, tax and fees — were too high. The largest single stated reason, by a wide margin.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · United States · excludes browsing-only abandonment

20%

abandoned because delivery was too slow.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · United States · excludes browsing-only abandonment

19%

did not trust the site with their card details.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · United States · excludes browsing-only abandonment

18%

abandoned because the site required them to create an account.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · United States · excludes browsing-only abandonment

17%

found the checkout too long or too complicated.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · United States · excludes browsing-only abandonment

17%

hit website errors or a crash during checkout.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · United States · excludes browsing-only abandonment

Reason, fix and the realistic effort

Five of the six leading reasons are fixed by changing what the store does, not by changing what it says.

Stated reason

What actually fixes it

Effort

Extra costs too high (40%)

Show delivery cost and threshold on the product page, and set the threshold against real carriage cost by weight and zone

Low to medium

Delivery too slow (20%)

Quote by lane and product type rather than nationally, and state a date you can actually hit

Medium

Did not trust the site with card details (19%)

Specific trust signals: a real phone number, a named returns window, visible reviews. Not a wall of badges

Low

Required account creation (18%)

Offer guest checkout with equal visual weight to registration

Low

Checkout too long or complex (17%)

Remove every field you do not use, and count the steps

Low

Website errors or crashes (17%)

Test the decline path and the error states, on a mid-range phone on mobile data

Medium

Effort ratings are judgements based on the work we do on client stores, not measurements. They assume an existing platform rather than a rebuild.

The four interventions that address most of the list

Between them these cover the reasons accounting for the large majority of stated abandonment.

Move cost and timing earlier

Remove the account wall

Earn trust with specifics

Test the unhappy paths

The eCommerce CRO checklist works through all four as part of a forty-point pass over product page, basket and checkout.

Three numbers that change how you read the rate

Abandonment does not sit on its own. These put it in proportion.

2.26%

average conversion rate across UK and Irish stores on one platform. An abandonment rate near 70% is arithmetically unremarkable at conversion rates like this.

SOURCE

July 2026 · UK & Ireland · July 2026 · one platform’s merchant base

19.3%

of completed online purchases were returned. Abandonment is not the only place revenue leaves after it looks won.

SOURCE

Published 15 October 2025 · United States · 2025 · survey of 2,006 consumers and 358 merchants

4,400+

participant sessions of usability testing sit behind the qualitative side of this research, alongside 344 benchmarked sites.

SOURCE

Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026 · Mixed geographies · Baymard research programme

Every source behind this page

What each organisation measured, how, and what it does not cover.

1

Baymard Institute

Published: Aggregate of studies 2006–2025, retrieved 2026

Method: Rolling average of 50 separate published studies, alongside their own programme of 25 rounds of usability testing across 4,400+ participant sessions and 12 quantitative studies totalling 20,240 participants.

What it does not cover: An average across studies with different definitions of a cart and different sectors. Treat it as an order of magnitude, not as a target for your own store.

2

IRP Commerce

Published: July 2026

Method: Aggregated operational trading data recorded within the IRP platform, using consistent attribution across the merchant network rather than survey responses.

What it does not cover: UK and Ireland, and one platform’s merchant base. Conversion rate varies enormously by sector, price point and traffic mix, so this is context rather than a benchmark.

3

National Retail Federation and Happy Returns

Published: Published 15 October 2025

Method: Two surveys: 2,006 US consumers who had returned an online purchase in the previous twelve months, and 358 eCommerce professionals at US merchants above $500 million in revenue.

What it does not cover: United States. Return rates vary so widely by category that the headline figure tells you little about apparel or furniture specifically.

Cite the original rather than us. Each title links to the publisher.

Cart abandonment FAQs

What people ask once they have the numbers.

The question has no useful general answer, because platforms define a cart differently and categories behave differently. Your own trend, segmented by device and by new versus returning customer, tells you far more than any published average. If your rate is stable and your revenue per session is rising, the rate itself is not the problem.

Partly because baskets are used as shortlists and price comparisons rather than as purchase commitments. Around four in ten abandonments are people who said they were browsing rather than buying. At typical eCommerce conversion rates, a figure near 70% is arithmetically ordinary rather than alarming.

They recover some revenue and they do not fix the cause. If people abandon because delivery cost appears at the final step, you are paying to email them about a problem you could remove once. Keep the programme, fix the cause. The abandoned cart flow structure covers what a recovery programme should and should not be asked to do.

Showing delivery cost and an estimated date earlier in the journey. It addresses the two largest stated reasons at once, it requires no discounting, and on most platforms it is a configuration and template change rather than a rebuild.

Sparingly, if at all. Regular discount-on-abandon programmes teach customers to abandon deliberately, which raises your abandonment rate and lowers your margin simultaneously. If a discount is the only thing recovering the basket, the underlying objection is usually price or delivery cost.

It is a rolling average across studies from 2006 to 2025, so it moves slowly by design. That stability is a feature for a benchmark and a weakness for a diagnosis, which is why the reasons underneath it matter more than the headline.

Define it once and keep the definition: baskets created versus orders placed, over the same window, segmented by device. Then watch revenue per session alongside it, because a change that lowers abandonment by removing small baskets is not automatically a win.

Yes. The conversion review inside the free eCommerce audit walks your actual checkout on a phone, including the decline path, and reports what it found against your own funnel data.

Want to know your own abandonment reasons?

A free eCommerce audit walks your checkout on a phone, including the paths that fail, and reports what it found against your funnel data rather than against an industry average.