Islamic vs. Conventional Banking in the Age of FinTech and AI: Evolving Business Models, Efficiency, and Stability (2020–2024)

Abstract

This study explores how FinTech and artificial intelligence (AI) adoption shape efficiency and financial stability in dual-banking systems. It focuses on 26 listed Islamic and conventional banks across 11 countries in the MENA and Southeast Asia regions between 2020 and 2024. To measure digital adoption, we create a seven-component FinTech Adoption Index. We use fixed-effects regressions to examine its impact on cost efficiency, profitability, solvency stability, and credit risk. This analysis also controls bank size, capitalization, and macroeconomic conditions. The results show a clear adoption gap. Conventional banks consistently score 0.5–0.8 points higher on the FinTech Index compared to Islamic banks. Each additional FinTech component raised operating costs by about 0.8%, but improved profitability slightly by only 0.03%. This suggests that technological integration creates upfront costs before any real efficiency gains are seen. However, the stability benefits are stronger. FinTech adoption increases the Z-score by 3.6 points and lowers the non-performing loan ratio by 0.1%. Islamic banks gain more stability benefits due to their risk-sharing contracts and asset-backed financing structures. Overall, an efficiency–stability trade-off emerges. Conventional banks focus more on profitability, while Islamic banks gain resilience, but face slower efficiency improvements. By combining the Resource-Based View and Financial Stability Theory, this study provides the first multi-country evidence of how governance structures shape digital transformation in dual-banking markets. The findings offer practical guidance for regulators and bank managers around balancing innovation, efficiency, and stability.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.