Sending money to a low-income country costs Britain 72% more
We analysed 791 World Bank service records across all 33 UK routes in its Q3 2025 release. The provider comparisons show how much of the gap sits in fees and how much disappears into the customer rate.
The poorer route is not always the dearer one
The group penalty is real, but India and Pakistan spoil any simple rich-versus-poor story. Customer volume and competition can matter more than national income; the payout rail can do the same.
The group average was 6.97%, against 4.06% for high income destinations. That is £6.97 versus £4.06 for every £100 sent.
UK to The Gambia averaged 12.06%. UK to India averaged 1.91%. Both figures include fees and the exchange rate margin.
The high income Poland route averaged 2.66%, against 2.39% for Pakistan. National wealth does not set the retail transfer price.
The South Africa average was 6.39%. India was 1.91%, even though both currencies sit outside the dominant global FX pairs.
Its observed service average was 2.04% to India and 12.19% to South Africa. The fee and exchange rate components both widened.
The group averages show the penalty, not its cause
Each bar averages the World Bank services offered for a £120 UK transfer. We restate the percentage as pounds per £100, but the figure is not weighted by real customer volume.
Low-income destinations cost more as a group, yet India and Pakistan sit near the cheap end. The pattern describes the services on offer, leaving route structure and provider pricing to explain the exceptions.
Where £100 loses the most on its way abroad
The Gambia costs 6.3 times as much as India on the service averages. Poland also costs more than Pakistan, a useful warning against treating national income as the price list.
| Rank | UK destination | World Bank income group | Average total cost | Cost per £100 | Market depth | Against high income average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | GMThe GambiaUK → GM | Low income | 12.06% | £12.06normalised illustration | 10 firms22 service observations | +197%versus 4.06% |
| 02 | AFAfghanistanUK → AF | Low income | 10.56% | £10.56normalised illustration | 2 firms3 service observations | +160%versus 4.06% |
| 03 | EREritreaUK → ER | Low income | 8.42% | £8.42normalised illustration | 6 firms12 service observations | +107%versus 4.06% |
| 04 | SSSouth SudanUK → SS | Low income | 7.95% | £7.95normalised illustration | 4 firms10 service observations | +96%versus 4.06% |
| 05 | RWRwandaUK → RW | Low income | 7.43% | £7.43normalised illustration | 7 firms23 service observations | +83%versus 4.06% |
| 06 | SOSomaliaUK → SO | Low income | 6.70% | £6.70normalised illustration | 6 firms17 service observations | +65%versus 4.06% |
| 07 | ZASouth AfricaUK → ZA | Upper middle income | 6.39% | £6.39normalised illustration | 9 firms24 service observations | +58%versus 4.06% |
| 08 | BGBulgariaUK → BG | High income | 6.29% | £6.29normalised illustration | 5 firms22 service observations | +55%versus 4.06% |
| 09 | ALAlbaniaUK → AL | Upper middle income | 5.84% | £5.84normalised illustration | 6 firms30 service observations | +44%versus 4.06% |
| 10 | LBLebanonUK → LB | Lower middle income | 5.70% | £5.70normalised illustration | 4 firms15 service observations | +41%versus 4.06% |
| 11 | SLSierra LeoneUK → SL | Low income | 5.52% | £5.52normalised illustration | 7 firms18 service observations | +36%versus 4.06% |
| 12 | BDBangladeshUK → BD | Lower middle income | 5.11% | £5.11normalised illustration | 10 firms32 service observations | +26%versus 4.06% |
| 13 | ZWZimbabweUK → ZW | Lower middle income | 5.04% | £5.04normalised illustration | 7 firms23 service observations | +24%versus 4.06% |
| 14 | THThailandUK → TH | Upper middle income | 5.04% | £5.04normalised illustration | 8 firms25 service observations | +24%versus 4.06% |
| 15 | TZTanzaniaUK → TZ | Lower middle income | 4.88% | £4.88normalised illustration | 8 firms24 service observations | +20%versus 4.06% |
| 16 | LTLithuaniaUK → LT | High income | 4.67% | £4.67normalised illustration | 9 firms25 service observations | +15%versus 4.06% |
| 17 | UGUgandaUK → UG | Low income | 4.64% | £4.64normalised illustration | 11 firms34 service observations | +14%versus 4.06% |
| 18 | JMJamaicaUK → JM | Upper middle income | 4.45% | £4.45normalised illustration | 6 firms20 service observations | +10%versus 4.06% |
| 19 | ZMZambiaUK → ZM | Lower middle income | 4.34% | £4.34normalised illustration | 6 firms21 service observations | +7%versus 4.06% |
| 20 | ETEthiopiaUK → ET | Low income | 4.34% | £4.34normalised illustration | 7 firms19 service observations | +7%versus 4.06% |
| 21 | CNChinaUK → CN | Upper middle income | 4.27% | £4.27normalised illustration | 6 firms23 service observations | +5%versus 4.06% |
| 22 | GHGhanaUK → GH | Lower middle income | 4.24% | £4.24normalised illustration | 13 firms37 service observations | +5%versus 4.06% |
| 23 | VNVietnamUK → VN | Lower middle income | 3.95% | £3.95normalised illustration | 8 firms25 service observations | -3%versus 4.06% |
| 24 | BRBrazilUK → BR | Upper middle income | 3.86% | £3.86normalised illustration | 9 firms29 service observations | -5%versus 4.06% |
| 25 | KEKenyaUK → KE | Lower middle income | 3.43% | £3.43normalised illustration | 10 firms27 service observations | -15%versus 4.06% |
| 26 | PHPhilippinesUK → PH | Lower middle income | 3.33% | £3.33normalised illustration | 10 firms38 service observations | -18%versus 4.06% |
| 27 | RORomaniaUK → RO | High income | 3.12% | £3.12normalised illustration | 6 firms24 service observations | -23%versus 4.06% |
| 28 | LKSri LankaUK → LK | Lower middle income | 3.06% | £3.06normalised illustration | 8 firms29 service observations | -24%versus 4.06% |
| 29 | NPNepalUK → NP | Lower middle income | 2.90% | £2.90normalised illustration | 6 firms22 service observations | -29%versus 4.06% |
| 30 | PLPolandUK → PL | High income | 2.66% | £2.66normalised illustration | 10 firms30 service observations | -34%versus 4.06% |
| 31 | PKPakistanUK → PK | Lower middle income | 2.39% | £2.39normalised illustration | 8 firms29 service observations | -41%versus 4.06% |
| 32 | NGNigeriaUK → NG | Lower middle income | 1.96% | £1.96normalised illustration | 9 firms31 service observations | -52%versus 4.06% |
| 33 | INIndiaUK → IN | Lower middle income | 1.91% | £1.91normalised illustration | 12 firms28 service observations | -53%versus 4.06% |
The World Bank records separate products, funding methods and payout methods as separate service observations. The averages above therefore describe what was offered, not market share or transaction volume.
Western Union costs six times as much on one observed route
We grouped each company's Q3 2025 products across the six World Bank routes that overlap with this site. The result measures customer cost rather than company profit.
| Provider | Lowest observed corridor | Highest observed corridor | Multiple | Where the gap sits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WorldRemitWorld Bank Q3 2025 | Nigeria · 0.28%Fee £0.00 · FX 0.28% | South Africa · 7.00%Fee £3.99 · FX 3.67% | 25× | Account payout → Cash payout3 versus 3 observed services |
| RemitlyWorld Bank Q3 2025 | Nigeria · 0.25%Fee £0.00 · FX 0.25% | South Africa · 3.96%Fee £2.99 · FX 1.46% | 16× | Account and cash payout → Account and cash payout6 versus 6 observed services |
| Western UnionWorld Bank Q3 2025 | India · 2.04%Fee £1.96 · FX 0.40% | South Africa · 12.19%Fee £5.45 · FX 7.65% | 6.0× | Account and cash payout → Cash payout3 versus 2 observed services |
| MoneyGramWorld Bank Q3 2025 | Philippines · 1.57%Fee £1.33 · FX 0.46% | South Africa · 8.81%Fee £3.33 · FX 6.03% | 5.6× | Account, cash and wallet payout → Account and cash payout6 versus 3 observed services |
| RiaWorld Bank Q3 2025 | Nigeria · 1.66%Fee £1.99 · FX 0.00% | South Africa · 7.44%Fee £6.00 · FX 2.44% | 4.5× | Online, account payout → Agent, account payout2 versus 1 observed services |
| WiseWorld Bank Q3 2025 | Poland · 2.03%Fee £2.43 · FX 0.01% | South Africa · 6.78%Fee £8.13 · FX 0.00% | 3.3× | Account payout → Account payout3 versus 3 observed services |
| PaysendWorld Bank Q3 2025 | Nigeria · 0.64%Fee £0.00 · FX 0.64% | India · 1.20%Fee £1.00 · FX 0.37% | 1.9× | Account payout → Account payout2 versus 1 observed services |
| XoomWorld Bank Q3 2025 | India · 3.07%Fee £1.99 · FX 1.41% | Philippines · 4.47%Fee £1.99 · FX 2.81% | 1.5× | Account payout → Account payout3 versus 2 observed services |
The World Bank measures the gap between its market reference and the customer rate. The company still pays for currency and compliance, plus its payment partners. Without internal accounts, we cannot say how much of the gap becomes profit.
Some of the gap is plumbing. Some is choice.
A high price may contain avoidable margin, but “abuse” explains very little on its own. Six operating costs can change before a company decides what return it wants.
Providers must source the recipient currency and manage movements between quote and settlement. Deeply traded currencies are easier to hedge. Thin, volatile or restricted markets can require wider buffers. Yet liquidity alone cannot explain the table: South Africa remains expensive despite the rand having a developed wholesale market.
BIS FX market evidence →A transfer into a bank account is not the same product as cash collected through agents. Cash needs locations, staff, security and liquidity. Mobile wallets and domestic instant payment links can shorten that last mile. In the provider table, WorldRemit’s cheapest comparison is an account payout and its most expensive is cash.
World Bank on cash costs →Some providers connect directly to a domestic payment system. Others rely on correspondent banks or local partners. Each extra party can add a fee, delay and reconciliation cost. Providers may also keep money prefunded in several currencies, tying up capital before the customer sends anything.
BIS on shorter payment chains →Identity checks, sanctions screening, fraud controls and transaction monitoring vary by route and payout type. Fragmented rules and inconsistent payment messages can force manual reviews. These are real costs, although they do not justify hiding the final exchange rate or fee.
BIS cross border payments study →A large, frequent corridor can be cheap even when the recipient economy is poorer. Providers can match flows, recycle local balances and spread fixed costs across more transfers. India, Nigeria and Pakistan are consistent with that explanation. This is an inference from the pattern, not proof of any provider’s internal routing.
BIS on FX and settlement design →Card funding can include acceptance costs that bank funding avoids. Fast delivery may require more prefunded cash. Fixed fees also hurt small transfers more: across all six overlap corridors, the World Bank’s £300 cost percentage is lower than its £120 measure.
Inspect the World Bank service rows →- It cannot separate underlying operating cost from commercial profit.
- Provider averages can contain different funding and payout products in each corridor.
- World Bank averages are not weighted by provider market share or real transaction volume.
- Q3 2025 is a collection window, not a promise that the same quote is available today.
Britain’s average price fell, but the divide survived
The all corridor UK average declined from 8.07% in Q1 2011 to 4.61% in Q3 2025. The latest low income corridor average is still 6.97%.
High dependence does not guarantee a high price
Pakistan and Nigeria depend heavily on remittances but remain among the cheapest UK routes. The Philippines is the only overlap corridor above both 3% of GDP dependence and 3% average cost.
Lower official cost
High dependence and cost
Lower official cost
Lower dependence, higher cost
The chart uses the six World Bank price corridors that overlap with the site’s 21 live UK destinations. Bubble size represents total remittances received by the destination economy, not bilateral UK flow.
The small transfer penalty remains visible
The World Bank tested £120 and £300 from the UK. The £300 cost percentage is lower in every overlap corridor because fixed fees are spread over a larger amount. The table also separates current prices from the change since 2015.
| UK route | Official £120 basket | Official £300 basket | Services observed | At or below 5% | Change since 2015 | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZASouth AfricaUK → ZA | 6.39%£7.67 on £120 | 4.64%£13.92 on £300 | 249 distinct firms | 29%of observations | -1.85pp-22.5% relative | Price pressure0.21% of GDP |
| PHPhilippinesUK → PH | 3.33%£4.00 on £120 | 2.00%£6.00 on £300 | 3810 distinct firms | 84%of observations | -3.10pp-48.2% relative | Dual pressure8.72% of GDP |
| PLPolandUK → PL | 2.66%£3.19 on £120 | 2.00%£6.00 on £300 | 3010 distinct firms | 83%of observations | -3.66pp-57.9% relative | Lower pressure0.95% of GDP |
| PKPakistanUK → PK | 2.39%£2.87 on £120 | 1.22%£3.66 on £300 | 298 distinct firms | 97%of observations | -0.67pp-22.0% relative | High dependence9.39% of GDP |
| NGNigeriaUK → NG | 1.96%£2.35 on £120 | 1.26%£3.78 on £300 | 319 distinct firms | 87%of observations | -5.24pp-72.8% relative | High dependence8.77% of GDP |
| INIndiaUK → IN | 1.91%£2.29 on £120 | 1.12%£3.36 on £300 | 2812 distinct firms | 100%of observations | -2.25pp-54.1% relative | High dependence3.66% of GDP |
Nigeria is the sharp break in the trend
The 2024 dependence ratio nearly doubled in Nigeria. Receipts rose 13.2%, so the GDP denominator also accounts for part of the jump.
Receipts rose 13.2%, while dependence increased by 4.76 percentage points.
Receipts reached $34.91bn and equalled 13.1 times net FDI.
The largest recipient in the panel, with a five year annual growth rate of 10.6%.
Economic dependence beside current quote evidence
The annual economy data, official World Bank cost study and this site’s screenshot backed quotes remain separate. No synthetic score hides the missing values.
| Destination | Received in 2024 | Share of GDP | 2024 growth | Five year CAGR | Remittances / FDI | Official UK cost | Fresh live quotes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PKPakistanUK → PK | $34.91bnWorld Bank 2024 | 9.39%+2.46pp since 2019 | +31.5%2023 to 2024 | 9.4%2019 to 2024 | 13.1×Net FDI, 2024 | 2.39%Q3 2025 | 0Awaiting the next verified run |
| NGNigeriaUK → NG | $22.13bnWorld Bank 2024 | 8.77%+5.21pp since 2019 | +13.2%2023 to 2024 | -1.5%2019 to 2024 | 13.7×Net FDI, 2024 | 1.96%Q3 2025 | 0Awaiting the next verified run |
| PHPhilippinesUK → PH | $40.28bnWorld Bank 2024 | 8.72%-0.61pp since 2019 | +3.0%2023 to 2024 | 2.8%2019 to 2024 | 4.3×Net FDI, 2024 | 3.33%Q3 2025 | 0Awaiting the next verified run |
| INIndiaUK → IN | $137.67bnWorld Bank 2024 | 3.66%+0.72pp since 2019 | +15.2%2023 to 2024 | 10.6%2019 to 2024 | 5.1×Net FDI, 2024 | 1.91%Q3 2025 | 131 Jul 2026, 08:11 UTC |
| FRFranceUK → FR | $38.78bnWorld Bank 2024 | 1.23%+0.17pp since 2019 | +5.7%2023 to 2024 | 6.2%2019 to 2024 | 0.7×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 22 within 1% of best |
| PLPolandUK → PL | $8.69bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.95%-0.30pp since 2019 | +1.8%2023 to 2024 | 2.9%2019 to 2024 | 0.4×Net FDI, 2024 | 2.66%Q3 2025 | 22 within 1% of best |
| PTPortugalUK → PT | $1.84bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.59%+0.24pp since 2019 | +6.1%2023 to 2024 | 17.1%2019 to 2024 | 0.1×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 22 within 1% of best |
| ITItalyUK → IT | $12.14bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.51%-0.01pp since 2019 | +2.1%2023 to 2024 | 3.0%2019 to 2024 | 0.4×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 22 within 1% of best |
| DEGermanyUK → DE | $22.17bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.47%+0.01pp since 2019 | +3.5%2023 to 2024 | 3.9%2019 to 2024 | 0.4×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 22 within 1% of best |
| NLNetherlandsUK → NL | $4.72bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.39%-0.01pp since 2019 | +10.4%2023 to 2024 | 5.1%2019 to 2024 | Not comparableNet FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 22 within 1% of best |
| CHSwitzerlandUK → CH | $3.64bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.37%-0.02pp since 2019 | +4.2%2023 to 2024 | 4.7%2019 to 2024 | Not comparableNet FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 131 Jul 2026, 08:11 UTC |
| ESSpainUK → ES | $6.33bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.37%+0.14pp since 2019 | +15.2%2023 to 2024 | 14.6%2019 to 2024 | 0.1×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 22 within 1% of best |
| AEUnited Arab EmiratesUK → AE | $1.80bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.33%No five year comparison | -4.3%2023 to 2024 | Not reported2019 to 2024 | 0.0×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 0Awaiting the next verified run |
| ZASouth AfricaUK → ZA | $855.37mWorld Bank 2024 | 0.21%-0.02pp since 2019 | +6.5%2023 to 2024 | -0.8%2019 to 2024 | 0.4×Net FDI, 2024 | 6.39%Q3 2025 | 131 Jul 2026, 08:12 UTC |
| HKHong KongUK → HK | $457.57mWorld Bank 2024 | 0.11%-0.01pp since 2019 | +0.8%2023 to 2024 | 0.3%2019 to 2024 | 0.0×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 131 Jul 2026, 08:12 UTC |
| IEIrelandUK → IE | $656.41mWorld Bank 2024 | 0.11%-0.04pp since 2019 | +15.0%2023 to 2024 | 2.3%2019 to 2024 | 0.1×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 22 within 1% of best |
| AUAustraliaUK → AU | $1.77bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.10%-0.02pp since 2019 | +9.9%2023 to 2024 | 1.1%2019 to 2024 | 0.0×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 21 within 1% of best |
| CACanadaUK → CA | $851.44mWorld Bank 2024 | 0.04%-0.04pp since 2019 | +0.5%2023 to 2024 | -8.3%2019 to 2024 | 0.0×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 21 within 1% of best |
| USUnited StatesUK → US | $8.71bnWorld Bank 2024 | 0.03%-0.00pp since 2019 | +3.7%2023 to 2024 | 4.3%2019 to 2024 | 0.0×Net FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 22 within 1% of best |
| NZNew ZealandUK → NZ | Not reportedWorld Bank 2024 | Not reportedNo five year comparison | Not reported2023 to 2024 | Not reported2019 to 2024 | Not comparableNet FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 131 Jul 2026, 08:11 UTC |
| SGSingaporeUK → SG | Not reportedWorld Bank 2024 | Not reportedNo five year comparison | Not reported2023 to 2024 | Not reported2019 to 2024 | Not comparableNet FDI, 2024 | Not coveredNo RPW overlap | 131 Jul 2026, 08:12 UTC |
FDI ratios appear only where 2024 net FDI is positive. Live quotes require a verified, non promotional public result captured within the past 36 hours.
Four layers, never one opaque score
Every figure keeps its own period, transfer size and definition. Missing data remain missing.
All Q3 2025 UK source observations across 33 destinations. The World Bank tested £120 and £300 in the UK collection window.
Same firm averages across at least two of the six destinations that overlap with this site. Product mix is disclosed.
World Bank WDI remittance receipts and GDP dependence, set beside net FDI.
Verified, non promotional public quotes. New UK checks use £200 and older evidence retains the amount shown on its captured screen.
The comprehensive World Bank bilateral matrix is modelled and its latest reference year is 2021. The World Bank’s price report says official bilateral corridor flow data are unavailable. It is therefore excluded from the charts, rankings and key findings.
Audit every claim
WDI values use the API vintage updated 13 July 2026. Price and provider calculations use the RPW workbook updated 5 May 2026, period Q3 2025.
- World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide dataset
- World Bank Q3 2025 report and annex
- World Bank UK to South Africa service table
- Annual remittances as a percentage of GDP
- Annual personal remittances received
- BIS 2025 foreign exchange turnover study
- BIS cross border payment technologies study
- Online Money Transfer live quote methodology
Online Money Transfer, “The UK Remittance Cost Divide 2026”, data edition, 22 July 2026, published by Finofin Limited.