← Blog

The Friction Dividend: Why Ride-Hailing Apps Don’t Need to Be Cheaper

A one-week audit of 2,238 matched trips found a 14% price gap between Uber and Lyft, and riders check the other app just 16% of the time.

Platform Performance · Ride-hailing · July 2026

In February 2025, researchers from Harvard Business School, Johns Hopkins’ Carey Business School, and Theia Insights hailed the same New York City ride on both Uber and Lyft, 2,238 times. The two apps quoted different prices for the identical trip at the identical moment, an average gap of $3.50, or roughly 14% of the fare. Riders had no way to know it without opening both apps, and almost none did: device-level data show only 16% of people who opened one app on a given day also opened the other. Two firms, fierce headline rivalry, apps sitting one tap apart on the same phone, and most riders still pay a price they never had the chance to compare.

The conventional read on ride-hailing competition is that two apps on every phone should crush price differences to noise. Economists have known since George Stigler’s 1961 paper “The Economics of Information” that even modest search costs can sustain price dispersion in an otherwise competitive market. But Stigler was writing about phone calls to five hardware stores, costs that should shrink to nothing on a smartphone with both apps installed and logged in. Ride-hailing, of all markets, was supposed to be the one where search friction finally died: no store to drive to, no salesperson to avoid, just two icons on the same home screen. Instead, the new working paper by Jeffrey Fossett, Michael Luca, and Yejia Xu shows that the very algorithm making ride-hailing efficient is the one keeping the friction alive.

Call it the Friction Dividend: the extra margin a platform collects not because its price is better, but because its own real-time pricing engine makes checking the competitor’s price too costly to bother with. Uber and Lyft need no agreement to avoid competing away that $3.50 gap. Their pricing systems manufacture the friction for them, in three distinct ways.

The Quote That Vanishes

A grocery shelf price sits still long enough to compare. A ride-hailing quote does not. Both platforms compute fares continuously from live, location-specific supply-and-demand signals rather than a fixed rate card, so a price fetched at 8:14 p.m. describes conditions at 8:14 p.m., not 8:15. There is no receipt from last week’s ride to check it against, no menu to memorize, only a moving number that has often already shifted by the time you’d switch apps to verify it. Where Stigler’s shopper faced a fixed price and a costly search, the ride-hailing rider faces a cheap search and a price that won’t hold still for it. If you’ve ever glanced at one app, flicked to the other, and just tapped “confirm” on whichever quote loaded first, you’ve paid the Quote That Vanishes firsthand.

The Silent Toll

That instability turns a small annoyance into real money at scale. Fossett, Luca, and Xu estimate the friction costs New York City riders roughly $300 million a year in forgone savings, about 6% of the two platforms’ combined gross bookings in the city (see the exhibit). None of that is money either company prices explicitly; it is money riders leave on the table because checking costs more, in time and hassle, than the $3.50 they would typically save. Multiply one overlooked comparison by millions of rides, and an individually trivial friction becomes a nine-figure line item that never appears on anyone’s invoice.

The Gatekept Comparison

The dividend is not purely an accident of app design, either. Uber’s API terms of service restrict how third parties can build tools on top of its pricing data, a policy that, whatever its stated rationale, keeps the one product that could neutralize the Friction Dividend off the market. Airfare has Kayak; gas prices have GasBuddy. Ride-hailing has no equivalent clearinghouse, a full decade into the category, and that absence isn’t an accident of platform youth. It persists because both incumbents have more to gain from riders not comparing than from riders comparing.

You might object that $3.50 isn’t worth the seconds it takes to switch apps, and for any single ride, you’d be right. That’s precisely the mechanism. The Friction Dividend isn’t extracted in amounts large enough to fight over; it survives because ignoring it is the rational choice every single time, even as it compounds into nine figures a year across one city. It is also, notably, a dividend neither platform has to defend in public. Nobody at Uber or Lyft has to justify a $3.50 gap in an earnings call, because no dashboard anywhere aggregates it into a number a reporter could ask about. Any marketplace that prices in real time and per-user, food delivery, event resale, freelance bidding on the same job, is very likely collecting some version of the same dividend. Most just haven’t had 2,238 matched receipts pulled on them yet.

The fix that would eliminate the Friction Dividend is simple in principle: a trustworthy, real-time comparison layer, the ride-hailing equivalent of Kayak. It doesn’t exist for one reason, neither Uber nor Lyft has an incentive to build it, and both have reasons, contractual and competitive, to make sure nobody else does either. Until that changes, the dividend keeps paying out, $3.50 at a time, to whichever app you happened to open first.