Ranking · World Bank RPW · 2025Q3

Most expensive remittance corridors

Where sending money costs the most, ranked by average price on a $200 transfer, and where switching providers saves the most.

118.2%
Priciest · Turkey→Bulgaria
75
Corridors above 8%
105pp
Top avg-to-cheapest gap

The verdict

The priciest corridor we track is Turkey → Bulgaria at 118.2% - but even here the cheapest provider charges 13.2%, a 105-point gap that rewards anyone who shops around - the #100 cutoff to make this list is 7.1%.

7.1%
#100 cutoff to make this list
14.3%
average cost across this top-100
7.5
avg. providers surveyed per corridor

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.

Why Are Some Corridors So Expensive?

High costs are driven by limited competition, low digital infrastructure in receiving countries, regulatory barriers, and small transaction volumes making corridors uneconomical for fintechs. Sub-Saharan Africa and Pacific Island corridors are often the most expensive globally.

TUR→BUL118.19%TAN→UGA62.68%TAN→KEN59.99%FRA→ALG45.13%TAN→RWA45.11%SOU→MAL38.64%SEN→MAL25.7%UNI→SUD25.58%
Top 8 most expensive corridors (avg cost %)
TUR→BUL104.99%TAN→UGA61.38%TAN→KEN59.27%FRA→ALG0%TAN→RWA37.29%SOU→MAL38.25%SEN→MAL24.2%UNI→SUD22.61%
Avg-to-cheapest gap (potential savings %)
TUR→BUL9TAN→UGA6TAN→KEN8FRA→ALG1TAN→RWA5SOU→MAL10SEN→MAL5UNI→SUD4
Provider count on each high-cost corridor
#CorridorAvg costCheapestSwitch & save
1Turkey → Bulgaria118.2%13.2%−105.0pp
2Tanzania → Uganda62.7%1.3%−61.4pp
3Tanzania → Kenya60.0%0.7%−59.3pp
4France → Algeria45.1%45.1%-
5Tanzania → Rwanda45.1%7.8%−37.3pp
6South Africa → Malawi38.6%0.4%−38.3pp
7Senegal → Mali25.7%1.5%−24.2pp
8United Arab Emirates → Sudan25.6%3.0%−22.6pp
9South Africa → China23.9%3.8%−20.1pp
10Qatar → Sudan23.2%2.2%−21.0pp
11Brazil → Bolivia22.6%5.8%−16.8pp
12Rwanda → Kenya22.6%2.4%−20.2pp
13South Africa → Angola21.4%6.1%−15.3pp
14Japan → China18.5%3.6%−14.9pp
15South Africa → Tanzania17.3%6.1%−11.2pp
16South Africa → Botswana16.4%5.6%−10.9pp
17South Africa → India16.4%5.3%−11.1pp
18Italy → Serbia16.2%2.9%−13.4pp
19Spain → Bolivia15.8%3.8%−12.0pp
20South Africa → Zambia14.7%4.9%−9.8pp
21South Africa → Nigeria14.7%3.5%−11.2pp
22Saudi Arabia → Sudan13.4%3.2%−10.2pp
23Kenya → South Sudan13.4%2.5%−11.0pp
24Kenya → Tanzania13.4%0.5%−12.9pp
25Angola → Namibia13.3%9.9%−3.3pp
26Ghana → Nigeria13.3%12.0%−1.3pp
27Israel → Morocco13.1%8.9%−4.2pp
28Italy → Albania13.1%0.7%−12.3pp
29Japan → Philippines12.9%2.1%−10.8pp
30Switzerland → Kosovo12.9%5.7%−7.2pp
31Thailand → Indonesia12.8%2.5%−10.4pp
32Thailand → China12.8%2.5%−10.3pp
33Australia → Vanuatu12.8%5.7%−7.1pp
34Kenya → Uganda12.8%2.9%−9.9pp
35Italy → Kosovo12.6%2.9%−9.8pp
36Thailand → India12.6%0.7%−11.9pp
37South Africa → Zimbabwe12.5%5.2%−7.3pp
38Thailand → Myanmar12.2%1.1%−11.1pp
39United Kingdom → Gambia12.1%8.1%−4.0pp
40Italy → Ukraine11.8%0.1%−11.7pp
41South Africa → Swaziland11.6%0.0%−11.6pp
42Thailand → Lao PDR11.5%2.7%−8.7pp
43Thailand → Vietnam11.3%2.3%−9.0pp
44United States → Lebanon11.3%2.5%−8.8pp
45South Africa → Lesotho11.2%0.0%−11.2pp
46New Zealand → Vanuatu11.2%6.5%−4.7pp
47Australia → Lebanon10.7%2.4%−8.3pp
48South Africa → Kenya10.6%3.4%−7.2pp
49United Kingdom → Afghanistan10.6%7.5%−3.0pp
50South Africa → Mozambique10.3%2.7%−7.6pp
51Saudi Arabia → Bangladesh10.2%7.2%−3.0pp
52Thailand → Cambodia9.9%2.5%−7.4pp
53Germany → Kyrgyzstan9.8%5.9%−3.9pp
54Italy → Bangladesh9.6%3.0%−6.6pp
55Italy → Moldova9.4%0.7%−8.7pp
56Canada → Lebanon9.4%2.1%−7.3pp
57Germany → China9.4%3.1%−6.3pp
58United States → Afghanistan9.2%6.9%−2.3pp
59Italy → Egypt9.0%1.8%−7.2pp
60Saudi Arabia → Syria8.9%8.9%-
61Netherlands → Suriname8.9%3.8%−5.0pp
62United States → Cape Verde8.8%4.2%−4.6pp
63United States → Cuba8.8%2.5%−6.3pp
64Japan → India8.7%1.2%−7.5pp
65Germany → Afghanistan8.6%6.7%−1.9pp
66United Kingdom → Eritrea8.4%4.2%−4.2pp
67Canada → Guyana8.4%4.2%−4.2pp
68Japan → Brazil8.3%2.4%−6.0pp
69Japan → Thailand8.3%2.7%−5.7pp
70Brazil → Paraguay8.2%2.7%−5.4pp
71Netherlands → Turkey8.1%2.5%−5.6pp
72Italy → Ecuador8.1%1.6%−6.5pp
73United States → Guyana8.1%3.4%−4.7pp
74Oman → Bangladesh8.1%6.7%−1.4pp
75France → Serbia8.0%4.9%−3.2pp
76United Kingdom → South Sudan7.9%4.8%−3.2pp
77Italy → Senegal7.9%0.4%−7.5pp
78New Zealand → Tonga7.9%2.8%−5.1pp
79Saudi Arabia → Ethiopia7.9%5.6%−2.2pp
80Italy → Morocco7.8%1.1%−6.7pp
81United Arab Emirates → Bangladesh7.7%6.0%−1.7pp
82Dominican Republic → Haiti7.7%6.7%−1.0pp
83Australia → Tonga7.7%0.9%−6.7pp
84United States → Bangladesh7.6%5.2%−2.4pp
85United Arab Emirates → Yemen7.5%3.0%−4.6pp
86Malaysia → Bangladesh7.5%5.0%−2.5pp
87United States → Thailand7.5%0.8%−6.7pp
88Kenya → Rwanda7.5%2.9%−4.6pp
89United Kingdom → Rwanda7.4%1.8%−5.7pp
90Jordan → Syria7.4%4.1%−3.3pp
91France → Morocco7.4%1.5%−5.9pp
92Sweden → India7.3%0.7%−6.6pp
93Sweden → China7.2%2.6%−4.6pp
94Canada → Ghana7.2%2.1%−5.1pp
95Germany → Hungary7.2%2.0%−5.1pp
96Qatar → Bangladesh7.2%6.7%−0.5pp
97United States → Armenia7.1%4.5%−2.6pp
98Switzerland → Albania7.1%5.4%−1.8pp
99Brazil → Peru7.1%2.0%−5.1pp
100Spain → Ecuador7.1%2.2%−4.9pp

Why these corridors stay expensive

Every corridor near the top of this ranking sits there for at least one of four structural reasons: thin provider competition, currency illiquidity, cash-out-only payout networks, or low corridor volume relative to fixed compliance costs. The four typically overlap. When a corridor's annual volume is well under USD 500 million, fintechs cannot amortize the AML/KYC and correspondent-banking setup over enough transactions to undercut incumbent banks, so the only senders' options are bank wires and money-transfer-operator branch transfers, both of which carry margins of 8–15%.

Several geographic clusters dominate the high-cost list. Intra-African corridors (e.g., South Africa to Botswana, Tanzania to Rwanda) carry costs above 9% on average because cross-border settlement still relies on USD-denominated correspondent banking even within the same continent. Pacific Island corridors (Australia to Tonga, New Zealand to Samoa) are expensive because small populations mean every transfer carries proportionally high per-transaction overhead. Sub-Saharan-into-Sub-Saharan flows are especially elevated because central-bank currency controls add friction.

The cost gap between the average and the cheapest provider on these corridors is also telling. On low-cost corridors, the cheapest provider sits 1–2 percentage points below the average, a small dispersion that confirms competitive equilibrium. On high-cost corridors, the cheapest provider often sits 4–7 points below the average, indicating one or two outlier providers (typically digital-first fintechs) are winning the corridor by a large margin but most senders haven't switched.

Sender takeaway: if your corridor appears on this page, the marginal benefit of comparison shopping is substantial. A USD 200 transfer at the average corridor rate of 10% costs USD 20; the same transfer via the cheapest tracked provider at, say, 4% costs USD 8. Across 12 transfers per year, that's USD 144 retained, often a meaningful fraction of a recipient household's monthly budget.

Download the corridor cost extract cited on this page: remittance-corridor-costs.csv (World Bank RPW · CC0).

About this ranking

This ranking sorts every corridor surveyed in the 2025Q3 World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) release by average cost, the mean of every quote captured for that sender-receiver pair, expressed as a percentage of a standardized $200 transfer.

100 corridors are ranked here. The UN SDG 10.c target is a cost of 3% or less by 2030; the World Bank's own reported global average sits around 6.4%.

Source: World Bank, Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) Database, 2025Q3. See our methodology for details.

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.