Dollar cost on $200
$8 of $200 sent
Based on 2025Q1 World Bank RPW data
2.7pp below global avg
Corridor
South Africa → China
Avg Cost
3.75%
Cheapest Provider
—
Providers Tracked
10+
As of 2025Q1
2025Q1 10+ providers World Bank RPW
South Africa → China
Quarterly cost, cheapest provider, and SDG-target gap for the South Africa → China remittance corridor. World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide data.
International money transfer cost data · World Bank RPW · 2025Q1
Transfer Cost Overview
3.75%
Average cost
N/A
Cheapest available
10+
Providers tracked
—
Annual volume
Cost methodology: Percent of $200 transfer amount. Includes service fee + exchange rate margin. Lower % = cheaper for sender.
This corridor charges 3.8% on average vs the UN 2030 target of 3.0% and the global average of 6.4%.
Avg Fee on $200
$8
SDG Gap
+0.8%
Annual Savings vs Avg
$5/mo*
SDG 10.c compliance
FAIL
0.8pp above the 3% target
Annual corridor volume
N/A
Not separately reported
SDG 10.c progress (target: 3%) 93.8%
3.75% average — 0.8pp above target
Cost Context
3.75%
This corridor
6.4%
Global average
3.0%
UN SDG target
This corridor is 2.7 percentage points cheaper than the global average. The UN SDG 10.c 2030 target is 3% or below.
Cost Trend
| Quarter | Avg Cost | Cheapest |
|---|---|---|
| 2025Q1 | 23.21% | 16.55% |
| 2024Q4 | 22.84% | 16.45% |
| 2024Q3 | 22.73% | 15.96% |
| 2024Q2 | 22.90% | 16.78% |
| 2024Q1 | 23.20% | 17.20% |
| 2023Q4 | 17.05% | 5.72% |
| 2023Q3 | 15.85% | 5.62% |
| 2023Q2 | 15.39% | 5.65% |
| 2023Q1 | 15.04% | 5.94% |
| 2022Q4 | 14.75% | 4.42% |
| 2022Q3 | 15.91% | 5.53% |
| 2022Q2 | 15.17% | 1.91% |
| 2022Q1 | 14.70% | 2.28% |
| 2021Q4 | 14.68% | 2.43% |
| 2021Q3 | 16.02% | 2.25% |
| 2021Q2 | 18.77% | 2.16% |
| 2021Q1 | 18.70% | 3.44% |
| 2020Q4 | 17.76% | 1.71% |
| 2020Q3 | 25.54% | 13.52% |
| 2020Q2 | 24.81% | 13.82% |
| 2020Q1 | 23.41% | 13.63% |
| 2019Q4 | 25.06% | 18.29% |
| 2019Q3 | 24.86% | 18.16% |
| 2019Q2 | 22.09% | 12.01% |
| 2019Q1 | 22.09% | 10.75% |
| 2018Q4 | 21.01% | 11.90% |
| 2018Q3 | 20.91% | 12.54% |
| 2018Q2 | 20.90% | 11.85% |
| 2018Q1 | 23.63% | 16.04% |
| 2017Q4 | 19.35% | 13.54% |
| 2017Q3 | 20.40% | 12.09% |
| 2017Q2 | 21.71% | 12.87% |
| 2017Q1 | 23.31% | 12.40% |
| 2016Q4 | 21.98% | 15.28% |
| 2016Q3 | 21.60% | 13.24% |
| 2016Q2 | 21.15% | 6.52% |
Sending Country
South Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
3.75%
Avg outbound cost
$1.0B
Total remittances sent
Receiving Country
China
East Asia & Pacific
$31.4B
Total remittances received
Nearby Corridors from South Africa
Other tracked routes from the same sending country — useful for comparing the South Africa → China corridor against peers on the same outbound market.
| To | Avg Cost |
|---|---|
| Zimbabwe | 6.50% |
| Mozambique | 6.80% |
| Lesotho | 4.20% |
| Zambia | 7.00% |
| Botswana | 3.75% |
Remittance Guides
Related Resources
Explore PlainRemit
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. Always verify current rates directly with service providers before sending money. Rates change frequently.
What the South Africa → China Data Tells Us
Sending money from South Africa to China currently costs an average of 3.75% of the transfer amount, according to World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) data as of 2025Q1. That is 2.7 percentage points below the global average of 6.4%, making this corridor relatively affordable by international standards.
On the cheapest end of the market, the lowest-cost provider tracked by the World Bank delivers this corridor at N/A — the floor price a South Africa-based sender can realistically access today. The full panel includes multiple tracked providers, which means price dispersion between the cheapest and the average is meaningful: a sender who defaults to their bank or walk-in agent can easily pay several percentage points more than a sender who shops around using a digital-first fintech.
Annual corridor volume is not separately reported for this route in the current release, but reducing transfer costs on any route translates directly into more money reaching recipient households. The underlying price is a product of three forces: competition between providers in the South Africa market, the cost of foreign-exchange liquidity into China, and the payout infrastructure — cash agents tend to carry higher fees than mobile wallets or direct bank deposits. Historical RPW quarters show that corridors with more digital competition have fallen fastest toward the 3% SDG target, which is why comparing the cheapest line against the average is the most practical action a sender can take.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to send money from South Africa to China?
The average cost to send money from South Africa to China is 3.75% of the transfer amount, based on World Bank RPW data as of 2025Q1. The cheapest available option is N/A. Costs are calculated as a percentage of a $200 transfer and include both service fees and exchange rate margins.
What is the cheapest way to send money from South Africa to China?
Based on World Bank RPW data, the cheapest service for the South Africa to China corridor charges N/A. Multiple providers are tracked on this corridor. Always compare rates directly with providers before sending, as prices change frequently.
How long does an international money transfer take?
Transfer times vary by provider and corridor. Digital fintech providers typically deliver within minutes to 1–2 business days, while traditional bank wires may take 3–5 business days. The South Africa to China corridor is tracked by the World Bank for cost transparency, but delivery times depend on the specific service chosen. Check the provider's website for current timing estimates.
Why are remittance fees so high?
Remittance fees reflect the cost of currency conversion, compliance screening, payment processing, and agent network infrastructure. The global average transfer cost is around 6.4%, while the UN SDG 10.c target is 3% or below by 2030. The South Africa to China corridor currently averages 3.75%, which is below the global average. Digital providers and fintech services typically offer significantly lower fees than traditional bank transfers.
What is the UN SDG target for remittance costs?
UN Sustainable Development Goal 10.c targets reducing remittance transaction costs to less than 3% by 2030 and eliminating corridors that charge more than 5%. The global average remains around 6.4%. The South Africa to China corridor currently averages 3.75%, which remains above the 3% target. Progress varies widely by corridor — digital-first routes tend to be cheapest.
How are remittance costs calculated on PlainRemit?
PlainRemit uses World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) data, which standardizes costs as a percentage of a $200 transfer amount. The cost includes two components: (1) the service fee charged by the provider and (2) the exchange rate margin — the difference between the provider's exchange rate and the interbank mid-rate. This methodology allows fair comparison across providers and corridors. Data is collected quarterly from mystery shopping exercises.
Source: World Bank, Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) Database (2011-2024) World Bank, Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) Database (2011-2024)
Read our methodology — how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.