Most Expensive Remittance Corridors

Ranked by average cost (highest first) · World Bank RPW · Most recent quarter Data from the World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) database, which benchmarks the cost of sending money across global corridors against the UN Sustainable Development Goal target of 3%; see our methodology.

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.

Top 8 most expensive corridors (avg cost %)

NIG→TOG16.1%NIG→MAL16.1%ISR→MOR13.45%TAN→UGA12.83%TAN→RWA12.83%TAN→KEN12.83%CAM→NIG11.65%GHA→NIG10.56%
Top 8 most expensive corridors (avg cost %)
# Corridor Avg Cost
1 Nigeria → Togo 16.10%
2 Nigeria → Mali 16.10%
3 Israel → Morocco 13.45%
4 Tanzania → Uganda 12.83%
5 Tanzania → Rwanda 12.83%
6 Tanzania → Kenya 12.83%
7 Cameroon → Nigeria 11.65%
8 Ghana → Nigeria 10.56%
9 Turkey → Bulgaria 9.96%
10 Saudi Arabia → Yemen 8.50%
11 South Africa → Malawi 7.50%
12 South Africa → Zambia 7.00%
13 France → Cameroon 7.00%
14 South Africa → Mozambique 6.80%
15 South Africa → Zimbabwe 6.50%
16 France → Senegal 6.50%
17 Brazil → Bolivia 5.80%
18 United States → Ethiopia 5.80%
19 Dominican Republic → Haiti 5.50%
20 Russia → Armenia 5.50%
21 Saudi Arabia → Ethiopia 5.50%
22 Spain → Colombia 5.50%
23 United Kingdom → Zimbabwe 5.50%
24 United States → Honduras 5.50%
25 United States → Peru 5.30%
26 Kenya → South Sudan 5.26%
27 Kenya → Rwanda 5.26%
28 Japan → Vietnam 5.20%
29 Spain → Ecuador 5.20%
30 France → Tunisia 5.20%
31 United States → Guatemala 5.20%
32 Chile → Peru 5.14%
33 Italy → Philippines 5.00%
34 Canada → Nigeria 5.00%
35 Australia → Vietnam 5.00%
36 United States → Colombia 5.00%
37 United States → Ghana 4.90%
38 Sweden → Somalia 4.87%
39 Sweden → Lebanon 4.87%
40 Sweden → India 4.87%
41 Sweden → China 4.87%
42 Russia → Azerbaijan 4.80%
43 Qatar → Nepal 4.80%
44 Japan → Philippines 4.80%
45 France → Morocco 4.80%
46 United Kingdom → Nigeria 4.80%
47 United States → Vietnam 4.80%
48 United States → El Salvador 4.80%
49 Australia → Philippines 4.70%
50 United States → Ecuador 4.70%
51 Brazil → Peru 4.60%
52 Spain → Morocco 4.60%
53 Canada → Philippines 4.60%
54 United Kingdom → Philippines 4.60%
55 United Kingdom → Ghana 4.60%
56 United States → Nigeria 4.60%
57 Poland → Ukraine 4.52%
58 Saudi Arabia → Syria 4.52%
59 Saudi Arabia → Sudan 4.52%
60 Saudi Arabia → Sri Lanka 4.52%
61 Saudi Arabia → South Sudan 4.52%
62 Saudi Arabia → Nepal 4.52%
63 Saudi Arabia → Lebanon 4.52%
64 Saudi Arabia → Jordan 4.52%
65 Saudi Arabia → Indonesia 4.52%
66 Saudi Arabia → Afghanistan 4.52%
67 Malaysia → Nepal 4.50%
68 Saudi Arabia → Egypt 4.50%
69 Germany → Morocco 4.50%
70 Australia → Pakistan 4.50%
71 United States → Philippines 4.50%
72 United Kingdom → Bangladesh 4.40%
73 United States → Kenya 4.40%
74 Qatar → Sudan 4.31%
75 Qatar → Sri Lanka 4.31%
76 Qatar → Philippines 4.31%
77 Qatar → Jordan 4.31%
78 Qatar → Egypt 4.31%
79 Qatar → Bangladesh 4.31%
80 Kuwait → Philippines 4.30%
81 United Arab Emirates → Egypt 4.30%
82 United Kingdom → Kenya 4.30%
83 United States → Dominican Republic 4.30%
84 Kenya → Uganda 4.20%
85 Russia → Tajikistan 4.20%
86 South Africa → Lesotho 4.20%
87 Saudi Arabia → Philippines 4.20%
88 Australia → India 4.20%
89 United Kingdom → Pakistan 4.20%
90 United States → Bangladesh 4.20%
91 South Korea → China 4.19%
92 Switzerland → Sri Lanka 4.11%
93 Switzerland → Serbia 4.11%
94 Switzerland → Kosovo 4.11%
95 Switzerland → Hungary 4.11%
96 Switzerland → Albania 4.11%
97 Qatar → India 4.10%
98 United Arab Emirates → Philippines 4.10%
99 Canada → India 4.10%
100 United States → Mexico 4.10%
Data source: World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW). Costs as percentage of $200 transfer. The UN SDG 10.c target is ≤3% by 2030. The global average is approximately 6.4%.

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.