Ranking · World Bank RPW · most recent quarter
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.
- 63.6%
- Priciest · Tanzania→Uganda
- 64
- Corridors above 8%
- 56.1pp
- Top avg-to-cheapest gap
The verdict
The priciest corridor we track is Tanzania → Uganda at 63.6% - but even here the cheapest provider charges 7.5%, a 56.1-point gap that rewards anyone who shops around.
- 63.6%
- priciest: Tanzania→Uganda
- 64
- corridors still above 8%
- 56.1pp
- biggest avg-to-cheapest gap
- 3%
- UN SDG 10.c target by 2030
According to the World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide database, these rankings draw on 14,736 quarterly corridor price observations collected through March 2025, each measured as the cost of sending $200 along a specific country-to-country route.
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.
| # | Corridor | Avg cost | Cheapest | Switch & save |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tanzania → Uganda | 63.6% | 7.5% | −56.1pp |
| 2 | Tanzania → Kenya | 58.2% | 8.2% | −50.0pp |
| 3 | Tanzania → Rwanda | 44.3% | 6.0% | −38.3pp |
| 4 | South Africa → Malawi | 43.4% | 14.5% | −28.9pp |
| 5 | Turkey → Bulgaria | 41.6% | 12.5% | −29.1pp |
| 6 | Senegal → Mali | 25.7% | 1.5% | −24.2pp |
| 7 | South Africa → China | 23.2% | 16.6% | −6.7pp |
| 8 | Saudi Arabia → Syria | 22.1% | 22.1% | - |
| 9 | Nigeria → Togo | 21.4% | 21.4% | - |
| 10 | Italy → Serbia | 15.3% | 2.9% | −12.5pp |
| 11 | South Africa → Botswana | 14.9% | 4.3% | −10.6pp |
| 12 | Nigeria → Mali | 14.4% | 14.4% | - |
| 13 | Israel → Morocco | 14.0% | 10.1% | −3.9pp |
| 14 | South Africa → Zambia | 13.9% | 5.2% | −8.7pp |
| 15 | South Africa → Tanzania | 13.9% | 6.6% | −7.3pp |
| 16 | South Africa → Nigeria | 13.1% | 4.0% | −9.1pp |
| 17 | Kenya → South Sudan | 12.4% | 2.8% | −9.6pp |
| 18 | United Kingdom → Gambia | 12.3% | 8.3% | −4.0pp |
| 19 | United States → Lebanon | 12.2% | 3.0% | −9.2pp |
| 20 | Italy → Egypt | 12.2% | 1.6% | −10.6pp |
| 21 | Italy → Albania | 12.0% | 0.7% | −11.3pp |
| 22 | South Africa → Zimbabwe | 11.9% | 5.0% | −6.9pp |
| 23 | Kenya → Uganda | 11.9% | 2.8% | −9.1pp |
| 24 | Kenya → Tanzania | 11.8% | 2.0% | −9.8pp |
| 25 | South Africa → Lesotho | 11.1% | 1.8% | −9.3pp |
| 26 | South Africa → India | 11.1% | 4.2% | −6.9pp |
| 27 | Australia → Vanuatu | 10.8% | 5.8% | −5.1pp |
| 28 | Italy → Ukraine | 10.8% | 0.7% | −10.1pp |
| 29 | Ghana → Nigeria | 10.6% | 5.4% | −5.2pp |
| 30 | Germany → Kyrgyzstan | 10.5% | 2.2% | −8.3pp |
| 31 | South Africa → Kenya | 10.4% | 4.4% | −6.1pp |
| 32 | Italy → Ecuador | 10.4% | 1.6% | −8.9pp |
| 33 | Italy → Bangladesh | 10.3% | 1.3% | −9.0pp |
| 34 | Australia → Lebanon | 10.3% | 2.5% | −7.7pp |
| 35 | Saudi Arabia → Bangladesh | 10.2% | 6.6% | −3.6pp |
| 36 | United States → Afghanistan | 10.2% | 7.5% | −2.7pp |
| 37 | Germany → Ghana | 9.9% | 1.8% | −8.1pp |
| 38 | United Kingdom → Afghanistan | 9.8% | 5.7% | −4.1pp |
| 39 | Japan → India | 9.8% | 1.4% | −8.3pp |
| 40 | United States → Cape Verde | 9.6% | 4.1% | −5.5pp |
| 41 | Canada → Lebanon | 9.5% | 2.2% | −7.3pp |
| 42 | Brazil → Peru | 9.4% | 2.0% | −7.4pp |
| 43 | Germany → Hungary | 9.4% | 2.4% | −7.0pp |
| 44 | United Kingdom → South Sudan | 9.2% | 6.0% | −3.1pp |
| 45 | Switzerland → Albania | 8.9% | 5.2% | −3.8pp |
| 46 | Japan → China | 8.9% | 3.6% | −5.3pp |
| 47 | South Africa → Mozambique | 8.9% | 3.9% | −4.9pp |
| 48 | Japan → Brazil | 8.9% | 2.3% | −6.6pp |
| 49 | Germany → China | 8.9% | 3.4% | −5.5pp |
| 50 | Japan → Thailand | 8.8% | 2.5% | −6.3pp |
| 51 | Italy → Brazil | 8.8% | 1.7% | −7.1pp |
| 52 | Germany → Serbia | 8.7% | 2.5% | −6.2pp |
| 53 | Italy → Senegal | 8.7% | 0.9% | −7.8pp |
| 54 | Italy → Moldova | 8.5% | 0.7% | −7.8pp |
| 55 | Italy → Morocco | 8.5% | 1.0% | −7.5pp |
| 56 | India → Bangladesh | 8.5% | 4.6% | −3.9pp |
| 57 | New Zealand → Vanuatu | 8.4% | 2.5% | −5.9pp |
| 58 | Australia → Samoa | 8.4% | 1.9% | −6.5pp |
| 59 | Germany → Thailand | 8.3% | 3.0% | −5.4pp |
| 60 | Italy → Tunisia | 8.3% | 1.2% | −7.0pp |
| 61 | United Kingdom → Albania | 8.2% | 4.0% | −4.1pp |
| 62 | Germany → Afghanistan | 8.2% | 5.9% | −2.2pp |
| 63 | United States → Thailand | 8.1% | 1.5% | −6.6pp |
| 64 | Italy → China | 8.0% | 3.1% | −4.9pp |
| 65 | France → Serbia | 8.0% | 4.9% | −3.1pp |
| 66 | New Zealand → Tonga | 8.0% | 1.2% | −6.7pp |
| 67 | United States → Bangladesh | 7.8% | 4.3% | −3.5pp |
| 68 | New Zealand → Samoa | 7.8% | 1.1% | −6.6pp |
| 69 | Sweden → Somalia | 7.7% | 5.7% | −2.0pp |
| 70 | Italy → Ethiopia | 7.7% | 4.3% | −3.4pp |
| 71 | Germany → India | 7.6% | 0.6% | −7.0pp |
| 72 | Netherlands → Indonesia | 7.6% | 2.3% | −5.3pp |
| 73 | United Kingdom → Ethiopia | 7.6% | 3.9% | −3.7pp |
| 74 | United Kingdom → Rwanda | 7.5% | 2.0% | −5.5pp |
| 75 | Spain → China | 7.5% | 4.0% | −3.5pp |
| 76 | Kenya → Rwanda | 7.5% | 2.8% | −4.7pp |
| 77 | Malaysia → Bangladesh | 7.5% | 4.4% | −3.1pp |
| 78 | Canada → Zimbabwe | 7.5% | 2.2% | −5.3pp |
| 79 | Czech Republic → Vietnam | 7.5% | 1.2% | −6.2pp |
| 80 | Dominican Republic → Haiti | 7.4% | 6.3% | −1.1pp |
| 81 | Brazil → Bolivia | 7.4% | 1.4% | −5.9pp |
| 82 | United Kingdom → Bulgaria | 7.4% | 1.3% | −6.0pp |
| 83 | New Zealand → Vietnam | 7.4% | 1.2% | −6.1pp |
| 84 | Saudi Arabia → Jordan | 7.3% | 4.0% | −3.3pp |
| 85 | Australia → Tonga | 7.3% | 1.6% | −5.7pp |
| 86 | Canada → Kenya | 7.3% | 2.2% | −5.1pp |
| 87 | United Kingdom → Eritrea | 7.3% | 3.9% | −3.4pp |
| 88 | Saudi Arabia → Ethiopia | 7.3% | 3.8% | −3.5pp |
| 89 | Portugal → Brazil | 7.2% | 1.7% | −5.5pp |
| 90 | Germany → Bosnia and Herzegovina | 7.2% | 3.6% | −3.6pp |
| 91 | United Kingdom → South Africa | 7.0% | 2.1% | −5.0pp |
| 92 | Austria → Bosnia and Herzegovina | 7.0% | 2.7% | −4.3pp |
| 93 | Sweden → Lebanon | 7.0% | 2.9% | −4.0pp |
| 94 | United States → Indonesia | 6.9% | 1.2% | −5.8pp |
| 95 | Costa Rica → Nicaragua | 6.9% | 2.8% | −4.1pp |
| 96 | United Kingdom → Ghana | 6.9% | 0.7% | −6.2pp |
| 97 | United States → South Africa | 6.8% | 1.9% | −4.9pp |
| 98 | India → Pakistan | 6.8% | 4.6% | −2.2pp |
| 99 | United Kingdom → Somalia | 6.8% | 3.9% | −2.9pp |
| 100 | Spain → Bolivia | 6.8% | 3.1% | −3.7pp |
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.
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.