The Lost Enquiry Report 2026: A Secondary Analysis of Large-Scale Form Behaviour Data
Authors/Creators
Description
The Lost Enquiry Report 2026 examines what happens between starting a website contact or enquiry form and successfully submitting it. Published as Leadfire Research 002, it combines secondary analysis of large-scale form behaviour benchmarks with usability research and practical implications for UK service and trade businesses.
The principal behavioural evidence comes from Zuko’s published benchmark, covering 739 forms, approximately 20,000 labelled fields, 93 million form views, 60 million starts and 38 million completions. Its Contact and Enquiry categories account for approximately 5.12 million tracked sessions.
Published starter-to-completion rates are 47.4% for Contact forms and 42.7% for Enquiry forms. Their complements imply starter non-completion rates of 52.6% and 57.3%. On mobile, the corresponding non-completion rates are 60.6% and 62.3%.
The report places these findings alongside Leadfire Research 001, an audit of 500 UK service and trade websites that found direct contact or quote forms on 88% of sampled sites. The two evidence sources are analysed separately and are not pooled.
This is a secondary analysis. Leadfire did not collect the external behavioural event data, and the benchmark rates are not estimates of abandonment specifically among UK trade businesses. Non-completion does not establish a permanently lost customer or sale, and observed associations do not establish causation. External source data is cited rather than redistributed.
The report includes metric definitions, reproducible calculations, an evidence register, limitations and references.
Funding and disclosure: Leadfire Digital Limited funded the report and develops conversational website lead-capture software. The report has not been externally peer reviewed.
Leadfire Research / 002. Version 1.0. Published 12 October 2026. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Files
leadfire-research-002-the-lost-enquiry-report-2026-v1.0-PUBLISH-FINAL-v2.pdf
Additional details
Related works
- Is documented by
- Publication: https://www.leadfire.net/research/lost-enquiry-report-2026 (URL)
References
- Leadfire Research. The State of the Contact Form 2026: An Analysis of 500 UK Service and Trade Websites. Version 1.0, 31 August 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22255054
- Zuko. Form Type Benchmarking: Form Abandonment Data by Form Purpose. Accessed 12 September 2026. https://www.zuko.io/benchmarking/form-type-benchmarking
- Zuko. About our form analytics data. Accessed 12 September 2026. https://www.zuko.io/benchmarking/about-the-data
- Zuko. Form Performance: Form Statistics Correlation. Accessed 12 September 2026. https://www.zuko.io/benchmarking/form-performance
- Zuko. Which form fields cause the biggest UX problems? Accessed 12 September 2026. https://www.zuko.io/blog/which-form-fields-cause-the-biggest-ux-problems
- World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative. Forms Tutorial. Accessed 12 September 2026. https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/forms/
- GOV.UK Service Manual. Structuring forms. Accessed 12 September 2026. https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/design/form-structure
- GOV.UK Design System. Question pages. Accessed 12 September 2026. https://design-system.service.gov.uk/patterns/question-pages/
- Information Commissioner's Office. Principle (c): Data minimisation. Accessed 12 September 2026. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-protection-principles/a-guide-to-the-data-protection-principles/data-minimisation/
- Baymard Institute. Phone Number UX: Always Explain Why the "Phone Field" Is Required (39% Don't). Updated 29 July 2025. https://baymard.com/blog/explain-phone-number-field
- Baymard Institute. Cart Abandonment Rate Statistics 2026. Accessed 12 September 2026. https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate
- Seckler, M., Heinz, S., Bargas-Avila, J. A., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2014). Designing Usable Web Forms: Empirical Evaluation of Web Form Improvement Guidelines. CHI 2014, 1275–1284. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557265