Wise vs Remitly vs Xoom vs XE: Which Actually Costs Less?

The table below is the measurement. Read the coverage column with the cost column — the two are not independent, and that is where most comparisons of these four go wrong.

Where these numbers come from. Every figure here is computed from our own live quote archive rather than provider marketing, which is why this page cites itself instead of outside sources. Cost is measured as (mid-market receive minus actual receive) divided by mid-market receive, so one number captures both the fee and the exchange-rate margin. Coverage is published beside cost deliberately: an average over 35 corridors is not comparable to one over 350, and leaving that out is exactly how a narrow provider comes to look cheapest. Full method and its limits: how we collect and rank quotes. The underlying datasets are the cost index and the consistency index, both recomputed on every build.

Three things in that table are worth stating plainly, because they are the reason a one-line answer is not available.

XE posts the lowest average cost of the four and leads virtually none of the corridors it quotes. That looks like a contradiction. It is not.

An average cost is taken over the routes a provider actually quotes, and those route sets are wildly different sizes. XE's average covers a few dozen corridors; Wise's covers several hundred, including thin and expensive ones where any provider's margin is wider. Comparing the two averages directly rewards the provider with the narrower, easier footprint. It is the same distortion that would let a bank quoting five corridors outrank a specialist quoting three hundred, which is why our Remittance Cost Index publishes the corridor count next to every cost figure.

"Leads most often" is the measure that survives this, because it is decided per corridor per day against whoever else quoted that day. A provider only wins a day where at least two providers competed, so a narrow footprint stops being an advantage. On that measure Wise is the strongest of these four by a wide margin; across every provider we track, it leads 22 of 214 corridors, the fourth-most of any provider. Our Provider Consistency Index has the full ranking and the method.

What to take from it: if you send on one of the routes XE covers well, its low average is real and worth checking. If you send on a route it does not cover, the figure tells you nothing at all.

The fee-versus-markup split in the table is the most practically useful column, because it predicts how a provider behaves at amounts other than the one we priced.

• Wise takes most of its cost as an upfront fee and very little as exchange-rate markup. That is the most transparent structure of the four, and it is why Wise looks strong at $1,000 and poor at $100: a fixed fee is a much larger share of a small transfer.
• XE charges no upfront fee on the transfers we priced and takes its entire margin in the rate. Zero fee reads well and is not the same as free — the cost is simply moved somewhere less visible.
• Xoom is almost entirely markup too, and is priced on far fewer corridors at our headline amount than the others, so treat its average as the thinnest number in the table.
• Remitly splits between the two, and competes on delivery speed and cash-pickup networks more than on headline cost. Its costs make more sense read against what it does that the others do not.

A provider taking its margin in the rate rather than the fee is not doing anything improper, but it does mean the advertised "no fees" is not a cost claim. Our FX markup checker shows the gap against the mid-market rate for any of them.

Every ranking on this site, including the table above, is priced at $1,000. That choice hides something important, and it hurts exactly the people who can least afford it.

Wise costs roughly four times as much proportionally on a $100 transfer as on a $1,000 one — the direct consequence of a flat-fee model. XE and Remitly also cost more proportionally on small transfers, but by much less. If you send small amounts regularly, the provider that is cheapest for you is very likely not the one that wins at $1,000.

We measured this across every provider with enough data at both amounts: see transfer cost by amount, where the cheapest provider at $100 is a different company from the cheapest at $1,000.

The honest process is short, and it is not "read a ranking".

1. Check your own corridor, at your own amount. These averages are across hundreds of routes; yours is one of them, and the gap between the best and the median provider on a single corridor is routinely worth more than the difference between any two providers' averages.
2. Check whether today's winner is the usual winner. On 26% of corridors the cheapest provider today is not the one that usually leads, which is worth knowing before you treat one result as settled.
3. Weigh what you need beyond cost. Cash pickup, delivery speed, and which countries a provider serves at all differ more between these four than their costs do.

You can compare all four on your route against the 80+ we track. If cost is the only thing you care about, the ranking that matters is the one for your corridor on the day you send — not an average of everyone else's.