Migrants sent an estimated US$729 billion to low- and middle-income countries in 2025, yet sending a typical US$200 still costs more than twice the 3% target, and the poorest corridors and cash users pay the most.
Written from the sources listed below, not independently peer-reviewed.
Sending US$200 abroad through a bank: what share of the amount does it cost on average, fees and exchange-rate margin included?
6.36%
Average cost of sending US$200
Global average total cost (fee plus exchange-rate margin) in the third quarter of 2025, more than twice the 3% SDG target. Simple average of advertised prices across 358 corridors.
Data year 2025. Source: World Bank, 2025
US$728.6 billion
Remittances to low- and middle-income countries
Officially recorded flows in 2025, up 94% since 2016 and more than four times global official development assistance. Informal transfers are not included.
Data year 2025. Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2026
8.46%
Average cost of sending US$200 to Sub-Saharan Africa
The most expensive receiving region in the third quarter of 2025, compared with 5.11% for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the cheapest region.
Data year 2025. Source: World Bank, 2025
Unit: % of amount sent
World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide, global simple average of advertised total costs. The 2009 value is for the first quarter; all later values are for the third quarter of each year. The corridor sample has changed over time.
SDG target 10.c aims to cut the cost of remittances to less than 3% by 2030 and eliminate corridors above 5%. At 6.36% in the third quarter of 2025, the global average is more than double the target and has stayed between about 6% and 7% since 2019, after falling from 9.67% in 2009. Informed senders choosing the cheapest services could pay 3.29% on average, close to the target. The Financial Stability Board judged in 2025 that average costs remain high and that satisfactory global improvement under the G20 roadmap timetable for 2027 is unlikely.
Of the 13 corridors where sending US$200 cost more than 20% in the third quarter of 2025, nine involved Sub-Saharan Africa.
Source: World Bank, 2025Senders using non-digital services paid 7.30% on average in the third quarter of 2025, compared with 4.59% for digital services, yet only 35% of the services measured were fully digital at both ends.
Source: World Bank, 2025Customer due diligence rules can shut undocumented migrants out of formal remittance services altogether, and tracing senders for these checks adds to providers' costs.
Source: Financial Stability Board, 9 October 2025, 2025Remittances were estimated at 45% of GDP in Tajikistan, 38% in Tonga and 27% in both Nicaragua and Lebanon in 2024, so transfer costs weigh heavily on these economies.
Source: World Bank, People Move blog, 2024Each country is shaded by its latest available value, so you can see where the gap is widest. Hover or tap a country, search for one, or open the full table.
Loading country values…
Values in % of GDP.
Personal remittances received as a share of GDP, latest year available per country (mostly 2024 or 2025; years differ). This shows how much an economy relies on money sent home, not what transfers cost: darker countries are where high transfer costs matter most. Officially recorded flows only; informal transfers are excluded, and some high-income territories also appear high.
Source: World Bank and IMF balance of payments data, via World Bank Open Data. Latest year available per country; years differ.
Values load from World Bank Open Data. Simplified Natural Earth borders; they imply no position on disputed territories.
Instead of one “percent solved” score, DO GOOD rates three separate dimensions. A problem can have mature solutions that still reach too few people. These ratings are an editorial reading of the sources on this page, not a measured index.
Has the situation improved in the real world?
ModerateThe global average cost of sending US$200 fell from 9.67% in 2009 to 6.36% in 2025, and the share of corridors above 15% dropped from 18% to 5%. But costs have hardly moved since 2021 and remain highest for Sub-Saharan Africa.
How mature and validated are the available solutions?
HighCheaper channels are proven and widely used: in the third quarter of 2025 digital services cost 4.59% against 7.30% for non-digital ones, and the cheapest services in each corridor averaged 3.29%.
How widely are effective solutions actually used?
ModerateMore than half of remittances now start through a digital channel, but only 35% of the services measured in 2025 were fully digital at both ends and cash remains common in many corridors.
The World Bank price survey is long-running and consistent, but it records advertised prices in a sample of corridors rather than what people actually pay, and the flow estimates cover only officially recorded transfers, leaving informal channels out.
The global average has stayed between about 6% and 7% for six years, and the Financial Stability Board expects no satisfactory global improvement under the 2027 timetable, even as remittances have become faster.
Remittances are the money that migrant workers send to their families in their countries of origin, usually in small, regular amounts that pay for food, rent, school fees and health care. IFAD estimates that about 220 million migrants and diaspora members support 1.1 billion relatives, and that recorded flows to low- and middle-income countries reached US$728.6 billion in 2025, more than four times global official development assistance. Every transfer carries a fee and, often less visibly, a margin on the exchange rate. The World Bank tracks these prices quarterly: in the third quarter of 2025, sending the equivalent of US$200 cost 6.36% of the amount on average, more than twice the 3% that the Sustainable Development Goals set for 2030.
The burden is uneven. Sending money to Sub-Saharan Africa cost 8.46% on average, the highest of any region, and 13 corridors still charged more than 20%, nine of them in that region. Transfers paid out or funded in cash, and those sent through banks, cost far more than digital services. For households where remittances are a main source of income, and for countries where they make up a large share of the economy, such as Tajikistan, Tonga and Nicaragua, these costs reduce money that would otherwise go to basic needs. High prices and strict account-opening rules can also push migrants towards informal channels that offer no consumer protection.
Remittance prices are tracked through the World Bank's Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) database, which collects the advertised price of sending money in a sample of country-to-country corridors every quarter. SDG indicator 10.c.1 is remittance costs as a share of the amount sent.
Total cost of a US$200 transfer
The headline measure adds the transfer fee and the exchange-rate margin (the gap between the rate offered and the market rate) for sending the equivalent of US$200, expressed as a share of the amount. A US$500 amount is also tracked and is cheaper in percentage terms because many fees are fixed.
Corridor coverage
In the third quarter of 2025 the RPW covered 358 corridors from 48 sending to 102 receiving countries, with about 19 services per corridor. These corridors carry most, but not all, global flows, and the data are prices offered to customers, not prices actually paid.
Simple and informed-consumer averages
The global average gives each service in each corridor equal weight. The SmaRT indicator instead averages the three cheapest qualifying services in a corridor, approximating what a well-informed sender could pay.
The international targets
SDG target 10.c calls for cutting remittance costs to less than 3% by 2030 and eliminating corridors costing more than 5%. The G20 adopted the same cost target and added goals for speed (75% of remittances available within one hour by end-2027) and access to electronic options.
What works
Publishing the full price of a transfer, including the exchange-rate margin, lets senders compare providers and puts pressure on expensive services. The World Bank survey and national comparison websites show that informed senders could pay 3.29% on average, about half the overall average.
Limits
Many senders keep using familiar or nearby providers, the exchange-rate margin is still hard to see at the point of sale, and comparison sites cover only some corridors.
What works
Services that are initiated online or by phone avoid the cost of agent networks and cash handling. In the third quarter of 2025, digital services averaged 4.59% and payouts into mobile wallets 3.92%, compared with 5.56% for cash payouts.
Limits
Senders and recipients need an account, identification, a phone and the skills to use it. Rural recipients often still need cash, and fees for cashing out at agents can add to the cost.
What works
Allowing non-bank providers such as money transfer operators and mobile money companies to receive international transfers increases competition; Ethiopia, for example, now allows mobile money providers to receive remittances.
Limits
Non-bank providers often reach payment systems only indirectly through a bank, and exclusive agreements or licensing barriers can keep competition weak in small corridors.
What works
Connecting instant payment systems across borders lets money move directly between accounts in minutes. The link between Singapore's and Thailand's systems reportedly reduced average fees and exchange-rate markups from about 13% to under 3%.
Limits
Each link requires agreements between central banks, compatible rules and willing participants, so few corridors are covered so far, and many migrants send to countries without a modern instant payment system.
What works
Applying lighter identity and reporting checks to small, low-risk transfers can lower compliance costs and bring more senders into formal, regulated channels.
Limits
Regulators must still guard against misuse of the financial system, and as long as rules treat small transfers like large ones, and banks see remittance providers as high-risk, costs stay high.
Promising, but not proven at scale. The stage shows how far each approach has come; it is not a recommendation.
Central banks are exploring ways to connect many national fast payment systems through shared platforms rather than one bilateral link at a time, which could extend low-cost, near-instant transfers to more corridors.
Projects led by central banks, such as Project Agorá, are testing whether tokenised money on shared ledgers could make the correspondent banking chain behind cross-border payments simpler and cheaper. Whether this will reach small remittances is not yet clear.
Programmes supported by IFAD and others pair transfers with savings accounts, insurance and investment products for recipient families. IFAD estimates that remittance-receiving families invest about US$22 billion a year in rural agrifood systems.
Electronic identity checks could make it cheaper for providers to verify senders and easier for migrants to open accounts remotely, provided that identity systems include people without full documentation and protect personal data.
Coordination gap
Banks often classify non-bank payment providers as high-risk because of compliance concerns and close or refuse their accounts, pushing them into more expensive arrangements and reducing competition.
Implementation gap
Customer due diligence rules can exclude undocumented migrants from formal channels, and reporting duties are as heavy for small transfers as for large ones, which raises the cost of serving low-income senders.
Implementation gap
Non-digital services cost 7.30% against 4.59% for digital ones in the third quarter of 2025, but only 35% of the services measured were fully digital and many recipients still need cash.
Technology gap
Non-bank providers usually cannot connect directly to national or regional fast payment systems and must go through a bank, where complex onboarding limits this route.
Coordination gap
Taxes on digital financial transactions in some countries discourage the cheaper digital channels that the cost target depends on.
Knowledge gap
The global price survey covers 358 corridors and records advertised prices, not prices actually paid, while flow estimates leave out informal transfers, so the true cost to migrants and the size of informal flows are uncertain.
Unresolved questions, not vetted breakthroughs. Answering any of them would change what is possible.
Advertised prices may differ from what senders pay once cash-out fees, exchange-rate changes and the channels people really use are included. How large is the gap, and which groups pay most?
Recorded flows leave out transfers through informal networks and couriers. How large are these flows in different corridors, and how much do they respond to formal prices and identity rules?
Despite the spread of digital services, the global average has stayed between about 6% and 7%. How much of this is due to market concentration, compliance costs, bank de-risking or the mix of corridors in the sample?
Fast payment links and tokenised systems have cut costs in some corridors with strong financial systems. Can they work for small, low-volume corridors into Sub-Saharan Africa and small island states, where costs are highest?
If you send money abroad, check the total cost, including the exchange rate offered against the market rate, on a price comparison website such as the World Bank's Remittance Prices Worldwide before choosing a provider.
Because many fees are fixed, sending a larger amount less often can cost less in percentage terms: the global average was 4.08% for US$500 against 6.36% for US$200 in 2025. Balance this against what the recipient needs and when.
If a family member or neighbour sends money in cash, helping them compare and set up a regulated digital service, where the recipient can use it, may lower their costs.
Back organisations and policy proposals that push for price transparency, proportionate identity checks for small transfers and access for non-bank providers to payment systems.
Ideas visitors sent in for this challenge, read by the DO GOOD team and pinned with permission. The colour shows the kind of contribution.
Loading the board…
What happens next
The DO GOOD team reads every idea and sorts it by colour: solution, research question, existing project, evidence or local action.
If you agree to publication, it can be pinned to this board. Contact details are never shown.
Pinned ideas are not reviewed by scientists and are not endorsed by DO GOOD.
This page is a research overview. DO GOOD does not run a dedicated programme on this challenge, and donations are not earmarked for it. You can join our volunteer work and outreach.
World Bank, published 2025
Latest quarterly report on remittance prices (data collected for the third quarter of 2025). Source of the 6.36% global average, the time series since 2009, regional, provider-type, instrument and digital versus non-digital averages, SmaRT averages, corridor coverage and the distribution of high-cost corridors.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 14 September 2026, published 2026
Press release for IFAD's Sending Money Home 2026 report. Source of the US$728.6 billion recorded flows in 2025, 94% growth since 2016, 220 million senders supporting 1.1 billion relatives, the comparison with official development assistance, rural flows and investment, and the share of digital channels.
World Bank, People Move blog (Ratha, Plaza and Kim), 18 December 2024, published 2024
World Bank/KNOMAD estimates of 2024 flows by region and the countries with the highest remittances relative to GDP. Estimates for 2024 made in December 2024.
Financial Stability Board, 9 October 2025, published 2025
Progress assessment against the G20 cross-border payment targets, including remittance cost, speed and access indicators, barriers such as bank de-risking of non-bank providers, due diligence requirements, indirect payment system access and transaction taxes, and the Singapore–Thailand fast payment link.
Financial Stability Board, published 2021
The G20 remittance targets on cost (3% by 2030, no corridor above 5%), speed (75% within one hour by end-2027) and access.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, published 2015
Wording of SDG target 10.c on remittance transaction costs and indicator 10.c.1.
DO GOOD International (2026). Cheaper Money Transfers Home. Global Challenges. Updated October 15, 2026. https://www.dogood.world/challenges/remittance-costs
For figures, please cite the original sources listed above.