Corridor Comparison
Side-by-side metrics for two remittance corridors · World Bank RPW data
| Metric | South Africa → China | South Africa → Zimbabwe |
|---|---|---|
| Corridor | South Africa → China | South Africa → Zimbabwe |
| Average cost | 3.75% | 6.50% |
| Cheapest cost | N/A | 2.80% |
| Cheapest provider | — | HelloPaisa |
| Providers tracked | — | 8 |
| Annual volume | — | $1.8B |
| Latest quarter | 2025Q1 | 2025Q1 |
What the Comparison Shows
The South Africa → China corridor currently averages 3.75%, while the South Africa → Zimbabwe corridor averages 6.50%. That makes the South Africa → China corridor roughly 2.8 percentage points cheaper on average. Cheapest-provider floors tell a similar story: the lowest-cost provider delivers China at N/A, against HelloPaisa on the Zimbabwe route at 2.80%.
Comparing corridors is most useful when a sender is choosing between destinations where the recipient has multiple payout options, or when an employer evaluates payroll routes for remote staff. For personal transfers, the practical takeaway is the same on every corridor — shop the cheapest provider, account for both fees and FX margin, and prefer mobile-wallet or bank-deposit payouts where available.
Data source: Source: World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) Database, quarterly release. Costs represent percentage of a $200 transfer amount.
Methodology reference: Source: UN Sustainable Development Goal 10.c target — reduce remittance transaction costs to below 3% by 2030.