--- title: "Cross-Border Payments Statistics 2026: $190 Trillion in Flows" date: 2025-04-02 author: "Barry Elad" featured_image: "https://coinlaw.io/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/cross-border-payments-statistics-190-trillion-flows.jpg" categories: - name: "Payments" url: "/payments.md" tags: - name: "Statistics" url: "/tag/statistics.md" --- # Cross-Border Payments Statistics 2026: $190 Trillion in Flows Cross-border payments moved **$190 trillion** in value in 2023, approximately **190%** of global GDP, according to IMF research published in 2025. Wholesale transfers between financial institutions and corporations accounted for about **$146 trillion** of that total, **77%** of the market, leaving about **$45 trillion** in the retail segment. Five years into the G20 programme to make those payments faster and cheaper, the Financial Stability Board reported that it is unlikely satisfactory improvements at the global level will be achieved in line with the **2027** Roadmap timetable. The cross-border payments statistics below draw on the indicators the FSB and SWIFT track and on the World Bank’s remittance price series. They also cover the FXC Intelligence provider panel and the volume growth reported by Visa, Mastercard and Wise. ## Key Takeaways - The 2025 key performance indicators show only a slight improvement at the global level since the KPIs were first calculated in **2023**, which is the clearest signal yet that policy completion has not reached end users. - Wholesale speed recovered to **54.6%** of payments credited within one hour in 2025, after slipping to **50.6%** in 2024. - The gain came from the receiving bank rather than the network: the beneficiary leg rose **5.4 pp** to **61.7%**, while the in-flight leg fell **1.9 pp** to **88.5%**. - Person-to-person transfers remain the most expensive retail use case at **2.5%** average cost, approximately stable since **2023**. - Per World Bank pricing data, the global average remittance price fell to **6.36%** in Q3 2025 from **6.49%** in Q1 2025, leaving it more than twice the G20 objective. - Provider churn is large enough to distort the trend: the provider panel recorded a **45.9%** loss rate between the 2024 and 2025 samples. ## Editor’s Choice - **Total flows:** **$190 trillion** in cross-border payment value in 2023. - **Wholesale segment:** about **$146 trillion**, **77%** of the total market. - **Wholesale reliability:** **93.2%** of wholesale cross-border payments credited within one business day in 2025. - **Retail speed:** **35.4%** of retail payment services settle within one hour. - **Bank remittance cost:** banks average **14.99%**, the most expensive provider type. - **Card network growth:** Visa total cross-border volume up **13%** in fiscal Q3 2026. - **Challenger scale:** **$243 billion** moved by [Wise](https://coinlaw.io/wise-statistics/) customers in FY2026. ## Global Cross-Border Payment Value by Segment - According to IMF figures, the headline number measures value moved rather than industry revenue: the **$190 trillion** total represents approximately **190%** of global GDP. - Inside the wholesale segment, about **80%** of large business-to-business payments are conducted by banks and investors and **18%** by hedge funds and trading firms. - Per IMF estimates, retail is dominated by companies rather than consumers: nearly **85%** of retail cross-border payments are B2B payments. - Consumer-facing flows are a thin slice. C2B transactions account for about **7%**, B2C for **4%**, and C2C for **4%** of total retail payments. - Family transfers sit inside that slice: remittances constitute nearly half of all C2C cross-border payments. - The wholesale estimate carries the widest error bars, since the wholesale segment is particularly difficult to estimate due to its opacity. - A separate addressable-market figure circulates alongside it: Wise cites roughly **$43 trillion** moved across borders by people and businesses every year, a narrower population than the IMF total. - Institutional flows dominate the picture, which is why the [cross-border banking data](https://coinlaw.io/cross-border-banking-statistics/) sits closer to this total than any consumer series does. | Segment | Value in 2023 ($ trillion) | |---|---| | Total cross-border payments | 190 | | Wholesale | 146 | | Retail | 45 | *Source: International Monetary Fund Fintech Note 2025* ## About This Data Compiled from 15 primary sources, all Tier 1 regulators, multilateral organizations, or company-filing material, published between July 2024 and July 2026. A source is qualified only if it published the figure itself rather than restating another party’s number. Figures are reviewed on a rolling basis and updated when the underlying institutions publish new editions. ### What is the current size of the global cross-border payments market? Two different quantities answer this question, and they differ by three orders of magnitude. The value of payments crossing borders reached **$190 trillion** in 2023. The market for cross-border payment services, meaning the fees and software revenue earned on those flows, is quoted in the low hundreds of billions instead. Quoting one number in place of the other is the most common error on this topic. ## Wholesale Cross-Border Payment Speed by Processing Leg - The G20 monitoring definition is a value threshold: wholesale payments are defined as payments with a value greater than or equal to **$100,000**. - End-to-end performance improved in the latest cycle, with **54.6%** of wholesale payments credited within one hour, up **4 pp** year on year. - The receiving side did the work: the beneficiary leg reached **61.7%** within one hour, a **5.4 pp** gain. - The network leg moved backwards, since the in-flight leg slipped **1.9 pp** to **88.5%**. - Over a full business day, the in-flight leg is effectively solved: **99.7%** of wholesale payments cleared the in-flight leg within one business day in each of 2023, 2024 and 2025. - The beneficiary leg lags on the same measure at **93.8%** within one business day in 2025, against **92.7%** in 2024. - According to SWIFT, which supplies the underlying observations, both wholesale speed indicators draw on the same network sample. CREDITED WITHIN ONE HOUR IN 2025 (%) · Source: Financial Stability Board and Swift, 2025 KPI cycle CREDITED WITHIN ONE HOUR IN 2025 (%) · COINLAW ANALYSIS Processing leg by Credited within one hour in 2025 (%) Financial Stability · 2025 100 75 50 25 0 54.6 End-to-end 88.5 In-flight leg 61.7 Beneficiary leg SOURCE Financial Stability Board and Swift, 2025 KPI cycle **How the legs divide a payment:** The in-flight leg covers the time a payment spends moving between institutions once instructed. The beneficiary leg covers the time the receiving provider takes to credit the end customer after the instruction lands. ## Recent Developments - **June 2026:** Wise reported FY2026 cross-border volume of **$243 billion** and a **21%** increase in active customers to **19 million**. - **June 2026:** Wise went live with two new direct connections in Brazil and Japan. - **April 2026:** Wise added Capitec to its Wise Platform partnerships. - **July 2026:** Visa reported fiscal third quarter 2026 net revenue of **$11.6 billion**, an increase of **14%**. - **July 2026:** Visa total cross-border volume grew **13%** in constant dollars, with volume excluding intra-Europe up **12%**. - **July 2026:** Mastercard reported second quarter 2026 cross-border volume growth of **12%** on a local currency basis and gross dollar volume of **$2.9 trillion**. ## Wholesale Speed Against the G20 2027 Targets - The target date is fixed, and most of the G20’s quantitative targets share a common target date of end-**2027**. - The one-hour measure has not moved in a straight line: it ran **53.8%** in 2023, **50.6%** in 2024, and **54.6%** in 2025. - The one-business-day measure is steadier at **92.7%** in 2023, **92%** in 2024, and **93.2%** in 2025. - Access held up across the same window, with the KPIs indicating that access to cross-border payments remains broad. - The FSB’s own verdict is blunt: it is unlikely that satisfactory improvements at the global level will be achieved in line with the **2027** Roadmap timetable. - The policy work itself is largely finished, because the FSB and partner organisations have completed most of the international policy work under the G20 Roadmap, as set out in its consolidated 2025 progress report. - Two years of runway remain against a measure that has gained less than one percentage point since the baseline. The constraint is jurisdictional adoption, and that clock runs slower than the target date assumes. Within one hour (%) vs Within one business day (%) · Source: Financial Stability Board and Swift, 2025 KPI cycle COINLAW ANALYSIS Year Within one hour (%) vs Within one business day (%) Financial Stability · 2025 Within one hour (%) Within one business day (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 2023 2024 2025 Within one hour (%) · 53.8 Within one business day (%) · 92.7 Within one hour (%) · 50.6 Within one business day (%) · 92 Within one hour (%) · 54.6 Within one business day (%) · 93.2 SOURCE Financial Stability Board and Swift, 2025 KPI cycle ## Cross-Border Payment Costs by Use Case - Small-business payments are the cheapest category, at **1.6%** average cost for B2B MSME cross-border transactions in 2025. - Business-to-person payments improved, falling **0.2 pp** to **1.8%**. - Person-to-business payments edged down to **1.9%**, a **0.1 pp** decline. - Person-to-person transfers outside remittances stayed highest, remaining approximately stable at **2.5%**. - That use case also concentrates the expensive corridors, with around **30%** of P2P corridors costly, a share that has remained stable since **2023**. - Senders paying above the target rate can compare the pattern against the [priciest corridors on record](https://coinlaw.io/most-expensive-payment-solutions/), where the same use-case gap repeats. - FXC Intelligence supplies the provider-level pricing behind all four use-case indicators. AVERAGE COST IN 2025 (%) · Source: Financial Stability Board and FXC Intelligence, March 2025 AVERAGE COST IN 2025 (%) · COINLAW ANALYSIS Use case by Average cost in 2025 (%) Financial Stability · 2025 B2B (MSME) 1.6 B2P 1.8 P2B 1.9 P2P (non-remittance) 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 SOURCE Financial Stability Board and FXC Intelligence, March 2025 > **By the numbers:** Across the four retail use cases the Financial Stability Board tracks, average cost moved by at most **0.2 percentage points** between 2024 and 2025, and the B2B figure did not move at all. Three years of coordinated international policy work have produced a pricing picture that is close to flat. ## How Cost KPIs Moved From 2023 to 2025 - The corridor measure deteriorated then partly recovered: **18.3%** of corridors carried costs higher than 3% in 2023, **24.1%** in 2024 and **23.7%** in 2025. - B2B pricing rose once and then held, running at **1.5%** in 2023 before settling at **1.6%** in both 2024 and 2025. - B2P pricing was the most volatile line, moving from **1.7%** in 2023 to **2.0%** in 2024 and back to **1.8%** in 2025. - P2B pricing has drifted down slowly, from **2.0%** in both 2023 and 2024 to **1.9%** in 2025. - P2P pricing has been the flattest line of the four, at **2.6%**, **2.6%**, and approximately **2.5%** across the three cycles. - A 5.8-point jump in expensive corridors during 2024 that barely reverses in 2025 is not a pricing trend. It is what happens when the corridor sample is rebuilt underneath the measure. B2B (%), B2P (%), P2B (%) and P2P (%) · Source: Financial Stability Board and FXC Intelligence, March 2025 COINLAW ANALYSIS How Cost KPIs Moved From 2023 to 2025 B2B (%), B2P (%), P2B (%) and P2P (%) Financial Stability Board · 2025 B2B (%) B2P (%) P2B (%) P2P (%) 3 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.6 0 1.5% 1.7% 2% 2.6% 1.6% 2% 2% 2.6% 1.6% 1.8% 1.9% 2.5% 2023 2024 2025 B2B (%) · 1.5% B2P (%) · 1.7% P2B (%) · 2% P2P (%) · 2.6% B2B (%) · 1.6% B2P (%) · 2% P2B (%) · 2% P2P (%) · 2.6% B2B (%) · 1.6% B2P (%) · 1.8% P2B (%) · 1.9% P2P (%) · 2.5% SOURCE Financial Stability Board and FXC Intelligence, March 2025 View the data| Year | B2B (%) | B2P (%) | P2B (%) | P2P (%) | |---|---|---|---|---| | 2023 | 1.5% | 1.7% | 2% | 2.6% | | 2024 | 1.6% | 2% | 2% | 2.6% | | 2025 | 1.6% | 1.8% | 1.9% | 2.5% | ## Remittance Costs by Pricing Benchmark - The headline series improved slightly, with the Global Average falling from **6.49%** in Q1 2025 to **6.36%** in Q3 2025. - Money transfer operators priced well below the average, as the International MTO Index decreased to **5.52%** from **5.91%** in Q1 2025. - Digital channels were cheaper again, since the Digital remittances index decreased to **4.59%** from **4.85%**, a gap that the [digital remittance pricing data](https://coinlaw.io/digital-remittance-statistics/) tracks corridor by corridor. - Digital-only operators were cheapest among provider types, at **3.54%**, down from **3.55%** in Q1 2025. - Banks remain the outlier, because banks average **14.99%**, the most expensive type of service provider. - An informed sender does far better than the average, given that the Global SmaRT Average remained the same at **3.29%** in Q3 2025. - Card rails now lead on origination, with [credit and debit cards](https://coinlaw.io/credit-card-vs-debit-card-statistics/) the lowest-cost instrument to originate remittances, averaging **4.39%**. - Corridor-level coverage is wide, and RPW covers **48** remittance sending countries and **102** receiving countries, for a total of **358** country corridors. AVERAGE COST IN Q3 2025 (%) · Source: World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide, Issue 54, September 2025 AVERAGE COST IN Q3 2025 (%) · COINLAW ANALYSIS Pricing benchmark by Average cost in Q3 2025 (%) World Bank · 2025 Banks 14.99 Global average 6.36 International MTO index 5.52 Digital remittances index 4.59 Credit and debit card origination 4.39 Digital-only MTO index 3.54 Global SmaRT average 3.29 0 3 6 9 12 15 SOURCE World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide, Issue 54, September 2025 **The provider choice is worth more than the corridor:** A sender using a bank pays an average of **14.99%**, while the three cheapest qualifying services in the same corridor average **3.29%**. On a $500 transfer, that difference is larger than most corridor-level policy interventions have delivered in three years. ## Remittance Cost by Send Amount and the 3% Target - Smaller transfers cost proportionally more, with the global average cost for sending **$200** at **6.5%** and for **$500** at **4.3%**. - Both sit above the objective, since the G20 commitment is to reduce the global average to **3%**. - Speed improved on this measure, as the global share of remittance services making funds available within one hour increased to **54.4%**. - Channel choice still decides the price, because digital remittance services continued to be cheaper on average than cash-based services in 2025. - Funding method matters at the margin: mobile money was the lowest-cost instrument for funding remittance transactions. - Disbursement follows the same pattern, with debit cards the most affordable means of disbursing funds. - The informed-consumer benchmark weakened in places, as the share of corridors with SmaRT averages above **5%** increased for sending both **$200** and **$500**. - Long-run progress is real, since the proportion of corridors with average costs of less than **5%** rose from **17%** in Q1 2009 to **83%** in Q3 2025, a trajectory the broader global [remittance figures](https://coinlaw.io/remittances-by-country-statistics/) set in context. AVERAGE COST (%) · Source: Financial Stability Board 2025 KPI cycle and World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide 2025 AVERAGE COST (%) · COINLAW ANALYSIS Measure by Average cost (%) Financial Stability · 2025 8 6 4 2 0 6.5 Sending $200 4.3 Sending $500 3.0 G20 target SOURCE Financial Stability Board 2025 KPI cycle and World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide 2025 ## Retail Payment Speed, Transparency and Access - The one-hour measure improved marginally, rising **1.9 pp** to **35.4%**. - The one-business-day measure went the other way, declining **1.7 pp** to **67.3%**, continuing a total decline of **6.7 pp** over the observation period. - Use-case spread is wide: more than two-thirds of [P2P payments](https://coinlaw.io/peer-to-peer-payment-app-statistics/) settled within one business day and almost half within one hour. - Business use cases trail badly. For B2B and B2P, less than **45%** of payments settled within one business day. - Disclosure improved from a low base, as the share of cost-transparent providers also transparent about payment speed increased **7.3 pp** to **62.9%**. - Business access has plateaued, since the share of MSMEs with a transaction account at a regulated financial institution remained broadly unchanged since 2023 at around **90%**. - Consumer access is still climbing, with the share of adults holding such an account up **4.9 pp** since 2022 to **78.7%**. | Indicator | 2025 level | |---|---| | Retail services crediting within one hour | 35.4% | | Retail services crediting within one business day | 67.3% | | Providers transparent on both cost and speed | 62.9% | | MSMEs with a transaction account | around 90% | | Adults with a transaction account | 78.7% | *Source: Financial Stability Board, 2025 KPI cycle* ## Card Network Cross-Border Volume Growth - Visa’s cross-border line outpaced its domestic one, with total cross-border volume up **13%** in constant dollars against payments volume up **10%**. - Stripping out intra-European activity lowers it slightly, to **12%** growth excluding transactions within Europe. - Transaction counts grew in line with volume, as processed transactions rose **10%**. - Revenue followed, since Visa net revenue reached **$11.6 billion**, an increase of **14%**, or **13%** on a constant-dollar basis. - [Mastercard](https://coinlaw.io/mastercard-statistics/)‘s cross-border line ran well ahead of its domestic line, at **12%** cross-border growth against gross dollar volume growth of **8%**. - Switched transactions grew more slowly, at **9%**. - Scale context sits in the volume base, with Mastercard gross dollar volume reaching **$2.9 trillion**, a series the [Visa network statistics](https://coinlaw.io/visa-statistics/) page tracks alongside its closest peer. YEAR-ON-YEAR GROWTH (%) · Source: Visa fiscal Q3 2026 and Mastercard Q2 2026 earnings releases YEAR-ON-YEAR GROWTH (%) · COINLAW ANALYSIS Metric by Year-on-year growth (%) Visa · Q3 2026 16 12 8 4 0 13 Visa cross-border volume, total 12 Visa cross-border volume excluding intra-Europe 12 Mastercard cross-border volume 10 Visa payments volume 10 Visa processed transactions 9 Mastercard switched transactions 8 Mastercard gross dollar volume SOURCE Visa fiscal Q3 2026 and Mastercard Q2 2026 earnings releases ## How Many Providers and Corridors the Cross-Border Payments Statistics Cover - The provider panel shrank year on year, from **687** payment service providers in 2024 to **634** in 2025. - Turnover inside that panel was heavy, with **249** new providers added and **303** lost. - In percentage terms, that is **37.7%** new and **45.9%** lost. - The person-to-business panel churned hardest, at **50.5%** new providers and **60.7%** lost. - Corridor coverage collapsed in one use case, because P2B fell from **5,739** corridors in 2024 to **4,739** in 2025, losing **1,000** corridors with none added. - The P2P panel was steadier, moving from **3,464** corridors to **3,407**. - Business corridors barely moved, at **2,134** in 2024 and **2,127** in 2025. | Use case | PSPs in 2025 | PSPs in 2024 | Corridors in 2025 | Corridors in 2024 | |---|---|---|---|---| | All use cases | 634 | 687 | n/a | n/a | | P2P | 271 | 254 | 3,407 | 3,464 | | B2B and B2P | 187 | 185 | 2,127 | 2,134 | | P2B | 459 | 480 | 4,739 | 5,739 | *Source: Financial Stability Board and FXC Intelligence, 2025* > **Worth noting:** A panel with a **45.9%** provider loss rate and **1,000** lost corridors in a single use case is not measuring the same market twice. Part of every year-on-year movement in the retail cost and speed KPIs is composition change, and the Financial Stability Board says so directly in its own notes. ## Non-Bank Challengers and the Take-Rate Squeeze - Volume growth continues at scale, with **19 million** people and businesses moving **$243 billion** across borders in FY2026. - Pricing keeps falling, since the average take rate was **52 basis points**. - Speed is now the default rather than the premium, as **75%** of Q4 payments globally were completed in under **20 seconds**. - The customer base expanded, with active customers up **21%** to **19 million**. - Balances are becoming sticky, because customer holdings grew **40%** to **$39 billion**. - Card usage grew faster still, at **37%** to **$44 billion** in card spend. - Licensing expanded the addressable footprint, as Wise gained new licence approvals in South Africa, the UAE and Thailand, the kind of build-out the wider [money transfer industry data](https://coinlaw.io/money-transfer-industry-statistics/) has tracked for a decade. | Wise FY2026 metric | Value | |---|---| | Cross-border volume | $243 billion | | Active customers | 19 million | | Average take rate | 52 basis points | | Q4 payments completed under 20 seconds | 75% | | Customer holdings | $39 billion | | Card spend | $44 billion | *Source: Wise Group plc FY2026 results, June 2026* ## Instant Payment System Interlinking Under Project Nexus - The project targets the structural problem directly, since Nexus seeks to enhance cross-border payments by connecting multiple domestic instant payment systems globally. - It has moved past the prototype stage because it is the first BIS Innovation Hub project in the payments area to move towards live implementation, per the [BIS Project Nexus page](https://www.bis.org/about/bisih/topics/fmis/nexus.htm). - Five jurisdictions anchor the build, with central banks and instant payment system operators of India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand working towards live implementation, among them the operator behind the [UPI transaction data](https://coinlaw.io/upi-statistics/) reported each month. - A sixth participates at one remove, as Bank of Indonesia joined as a special observer. - The BIS role narrowed as the scheme matured, and the BIS is to play an advisory role as Project Nexus sets up an operational scheme and opens to potential new participants. - Domestic rails are the binding constraint, which is why the blueprint targets connection of domestic instant payment systems. - Counting the observer, **6** jurisdictions take part, five working towards live implementation and one attending as a special observer. | Jurisdiction | Role in Project Nexus | |---|---| | India | Central bank and IPS operator working towards live implementation | | Malaysia | Central bank and IPS operator working towards live implementation | | Philippines | Central bank and IPS operator working towards live implementation | | Singapore | Central bank and IPS operator working towards live implementation | | Thailand | Central bank and IPS operator working towards live implementation | | Indonesia | Special observer | *Source: Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub, 2026* ## Why is it hard to make cross-border payments in 2026? The friction is structural rather than technical. The Financial Stability Board names several persistent challenges. They are misaligned anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist-financing controls, privacy rules, inefficient implementation of capital controls, limited transparency for end-users, interoperability challenges, and insufficient competition in certain market segments. Each of those sits with national authorities rather than with the payment networks. A joint CPMI-FSB monitoring survey found that jurisdictional implementation of policy recommendations on legal, regulatory, and supervisory issues is nascent. That is the gap between a finished rulebook and a faster payment: the international work concluded, and the domestic work has barely started. ## What are the downsides of cross-border payments? Cost and settlement risk fall hardest on the smallest senders. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the most expensive region to send money to, at **8.46%** total average cost. At the other end, the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan region overtook South Asia as the lowest cost receiving region, with an average cost of **5.11%**. Timing is the second drawback. Fewer than half of retail cross-border payment services credit funds within one hour, and **67.3%** do so within one business day, so a payment sent on a Friday can still sit in transit over a weekend. For a household depending on a monthly transfer, that delay is a liquidity event, not an inconvenience. ## Conclusion The **$190 trillion** that crossed borders in 2023 now moves through a system whose rulebook is finished and whose results are not. Wholesale payments got measurably faster in the latest cycle, reaching **54.6%** within one hour, while the most expensive retail use case held approximately stable at **2.5%** and the global remittance average settled at **6.36%**. The people furthest from the targets are the ones the targets were written for: households sending small sums into the most expensive receiving regions, and the small businesses paying above-target rates on routine invoices. The near-term change is more likely to come from infrastructure than from policy. Instant payment system interlinking and the continued repricing pressure from non-bank providers are the two forces already visible in the data, and both work on the domestic rails where the FSB says the remaining friction lives. Definition of Cross-Chain. Link to full glossary entry follows the description.**Cross-Chain**Cross-chain is the ability to move data or assets between separate blockchains via bridges, messaging protocols, or interoperability networks. [Read more](https://coinlaw.io/glossary/cross-chain/)