Footwear returns & conversion data
Size is the single biggest reason shoes come back — roughly 40% of footwear returns. Here is why that happens, what it costs retailers, and what changes when shoppers can measure and size accurately before they buy.
Last updated June 2026 · ARFits Editorial
of footwear returns are size-related
fewer size returns with AR foot scanning
lift in product-page conversion
Why size is the largest return reason
Apparel and footwear carry some of the highest return rates in ecommerce, and within footwear the dominant cause is fit. Industry estimates consistently put size-related issues at around 40% of footwear returns — the single largest category, ahead of "changed my mind," "looked different," or damage.
The reason is structural. Shoe sizing is not standardised: the same labelled size differs across brands, models, lasts, and widths. A shopper who is a "42" in one sneaker can be a "43" in another. Online, they cannot try before buying, so many resort to bracketing — ordering two sizes intending to return one. Every one of those planned returns is logged as a size return, and each one costs the retailer.
What returns cost retailers
A return is not just a refunded order — it carries a stack of costs that the original sale was supposed to cover:
- •Reverse logistics: return shipping, often subsidised or free to the shopper.
- •Processing & inspection: warehouse labour to receive, check, and restock each pair.
- •Markdown & waste: opened or out-of-season returns may be discounted or written off.
- •Lost margin & tied-up inventory: stock sits in transit instead of selling.
- •Environmental cost: extra shipping legs and packaging, increasingly scrutinised.
Because size is the biggest single driver, anything that helps a shopper buy the right size the first time attacks the largest slice of this cost — and reducing bracketing also reduces the order volume that ever enters reverse logistics.
The measured impact of fitting tools
When shoppers can measure their feet and get a size recommendation for the specific model, two things move. Reported deployments of browser-based AR foot scanning see roughly a 20% reduction in size-related returns and about a 30% lift in product-page conversion.
The conversion lift and the returns drop are two sides of the same mechanism: confidence. A shopper who is shown "this size fits you" with a visible fit heatmap is both more likely to buy (conversion up) and less likely to have guessed wrong (returns down). Capturing ball girth as well as length is part of why the recommendation holds up better than a length-only guess.
| Metric | Figure | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Size-related share of footwear returns | ~40% | Industry estimate |
| Reduction in size-related returns with AR foot scan | ~20% | Reported deployments |
| Product-page conversion lift | ~30% | Reported deployments |
| Scan accuracy vs. podiatrist scan | ±2 mm (≈99%) | Reported measurement |
Methodology & sources
Market figures are industry estimates. The ~40% size-related share of footwear returns reflects widely-cited figures across retail and returns-industry analysis. Exact percentages vary by category, region, and retailer, and we present this as a directional estimate rather than a single audited statistic.
Impact figures are from reported deployments. The ~20% reduction in size-related returns and ~30% conversion lift are reported outcomes from deployments of browser-based AR foot scanning. They describe observed results in specific implementations and are not a guarantee of identical results in every store; outcomes depend on catalogue, baseline return rate, traffic, and how prominently the tool is surfaced.
Accuracy figure. The ±2 mm (≈99%) accuracy is stated relative to a podiatrist scan and assumes the shopper follows the on-screen guidance in adequate lighting.
We deliberately do not attach specific citations or URLs to the market figures above, because returns statistics are reported inconsistently across sources; treat them as industry estimates to be validated against your own data.