Ranking · World Bank remittance data
Largest remittance corridors by volume
The routes that move the most money each year, ranked by annual transfer volume, with the cost senders pay on each.
- $0M
- Combined annual volume
- 0
- Corridors ranked
According to the World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide database, these rankings draw on 17,184 quarterly corridor price observations spanning 2011Q1 to 2025Q3, each measured as the cost of sending $200 along a specific country-to-country route. The World Bank panel is irregular (semi-annual in the early 2010s, and no 2025Q2 release), so this is a count of observations, not of consecutive quarters.
No ranking data is available for this view right now.
This can happen if the underlying filters match zero records, or during a data refresh. It does not mean zero events occurred, see our methodology or report a data error if this looks wrong.
Why the largest corridors matter most for the SDG target
National WDI totals provide country-level remittance context, but they cannot be allocated to individual origin-destination routes. PlainRemit therefore leaves corridor-volume comparisons unranked rather than presenting an inferred bilateral estimate as observed data.
The largest corridors are not always the cheapest, but they tend to be more competitive than average. United States outflows, to Mexico, India, China, Philippines, Vietnam, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, see intense fintech competition because the regulatory framework (state money-transmitter licenses, FinCEN oversight) is well-understood and the corridor volumes justify product investment. The same pattern applies to outflows from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
High-volume corridors also tend to have well-developed mobile and cash-pickup payout networks on the receiver side, which is what makes low-cost digital-first transfers possible. India's UPI rails, the Philippines' GCash and PayMaya wallets, and Mexico's SPEI interbank network all enable instant payout for inbound remittances, removing the per-transaction settlement cost that drives prices up on thinner corridors.
When the UN SDG 10.c progress is measured, the largest corridors are the ones that move the global average. A high-cost intra-African corridor at 12% matters morally but adds only a fraction of a basis point to the global mean; a 1-point reduction on US-Mexico moves the global average several tenths of a point. That asymmetry is why competition policy in the top 20 corridors disproportionately determines whether the SDG target is achievable by 2030.
Download the corridor cost extract cited on this page: remittance-corridor-costs.csv (World Bank RPW · CC0).
About this ranking
PlainRemit currently ingests World Bank WDI national remittance totals, not bilateral corridor flows. This historical page does not make a corridor-volume claim until a reproducible bilateral source is available.
Transfer-cost figures cited alongside this ranking come from the World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) survey. Annual volume figures may not cover all informal transfers.
Every figure on PlainRemit is rendered directly from World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) data, no number is typed in by an editor. This page draws directly on World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) data, no figure is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error.