Loading...
Data refreshed
Which provider is cheapest most often?
No provider is cheapest everywhere. Across 125,025 provider-day observations on 212 corridors, Wise is the most frequent winner on 44 of them — 21%, the largest share of any provider and nowhere near a majority. On 25% of corridors, the provider that is cheapest today is not the one that usually wins.
125,025
Provider-day observations
over 91 days
212
Corridors measured
of 1,012 pairs tracked
66
Providers ranked
30+ contested days each
25%
Corridors that rotate
today's best ≠ usual best
Provider Consistency Index — 2026-09-07
Ranked by the number of corridors where the provider is the most frequent winner. A win only counts on a day when at least two providers quoted, so winning unopposed earns nothing. “Loses by” is the average shortfall against the day’s winner — the cost of choosing that provider on a day it does not lead.
#ProviderLeadsOf whichDays wonLoses by
9
3543.0%0.84%
BNZ
13
1433.1%0.57%
HSBC Singapore
14
1325.1%15.98%
PostFinance
18
0131.9%0.12%
Zürcher Kantonalbank
19
058.7%1.24%
Westpac NZ
1
Leads
44/124
Days won
32.6%
Loses by
2.73%
Leads
40/66
Days won
62.9%
Loses by
0.63%
Leads
40/148
Days won
30.6%
Loses by
1.02%
Leads
31/87
Days won
36.2%
Loses by
1.00%
Leads
20/80
Days won
26.5%
Loses by
1.15%
Leads
10/109
Days won
6.9%
Loses by
4.11%
Leads
7/55
Days won
13.4%
Loses by
2.81%
Leads
4/75
Days won
5.5%
Loses by
5.72%
9
BNZ
Leads
3/5
Days won
43.0%
Loses by
0.84%
10
Leads
3/65
Days won
10.8%
Loses by
2.18%
11
Leads
3/101
Days won
3.9%
Loses by
3.47%
Leads
2/50
Days won
5.5%
Loses by
3.44%
13
HSBC Singapore
Leads
1/4
Days won
33.1%
Loses by
0.57%
14
PostFinance
Leads
1/3
Days won
25.1%
Loses by
15.98%
15
Leads
1/5
Days won
13.3%
Loses by
5.77%
Leads
1/21
Days won
11.0%
Loses by
3.02%
17
Leads
1/41
Days won
4.3%
Loses by
2.75%
18
Zürcher Kantonalbank
Leads
0/1
Days won
31.9%
Loses by
0.12%
19
Westpac NZ
Leads
0/5
Days won
8.7%
Loses by
1.24%
20
Leads
0/8
Days won
2.6%
Loses by
12.30%
Showing the top 20 of 66 ranked providers. Download the full index as CSV.
Breadth and hit rate are different things
Wise leads the most corridors, but only 35% of the 124 it quotes on. Ria Money Transfer quotes on only 66 corridors but leads 61% of them, and LemFi quotes on only 87 corridors but leads 36% of them. A table sorted by total wins names the broadest provider, not the one most likely to be cheapest on the corridor you are actually sending on — which is why this index publishes both columns.
What it costs to pick a provider that does not lead
Average shortfall against the day’s winner, among providers quoting on at least 40 corridors. A provider can lead rarely and still be a reasonable choice if it loses by very little; these are the ones where it costs real money.
−9.31%
leads 0% of 43 corridors
−5.72%
leads 5% of 75 corridors
−5.21%
leads 0% of 41 corridors
−4.11%
leads 9% of 109 corridors
−3.73%
leads 0% of 60 corridors
On a $1,000 transfer, a 9.31% shortfall is about $93less reaching the recipient than the day’s best provider would have delivered.
Methodology
What is measured.Every six hours we record what each provider would actually deliver to the recipient on each corridor we track. For each corridor and each day, the provider delivering the most is that day’s winner. This index counts winners over the trailing 91 days.
Contested days only. A day counts as evidence only when at least two providers quoted that corridor. Winning unopposed is not a win. That reduces 1,012 tracked currency pairs to 212 with a genuine contested record — the rest carry a single provider, where no comparison exists.
Thresholds. A provider is ranked once it has quoted on 30 or more contested days. Claims about the share of corridors a provider leads are made only for providers quoting on at least 40 corridors, because a provider leading three of its five corridors would otherwise top a table sorted on hit rate.
Ties and gaps.Only one provider wins a day; where a provider does not quote on a day, that day is not counted against it. Coverage is therefore reported separately (“of which”) rather than folded into the win rate, so a provider that appears rarely and wins often is visible instead of averaged away.
Limitations.Amounts are the corridor’s headline sample amount; a different amount can change the leader where fee structures differ. Quotes are the advertised rate at the moment of collection and exclude promotional first-transfer rates. Delivery speed is not measured and is not part of this index. Providers may be cheapest on corridors we do not yet track.
The full per-provider table, including the 46 providers below the displayed rows, is available as CSV. Figures on this page and the “usually cheapest” line on each corridor page are produced by the same calculation, so they cannot disagree. See also our site-wide methodology and the Remittance Cost Index, which ranks providers by cost rather than by how often they win. For when to send rather than who to send with, see SendScore. Every dataset we publish is indexed on the research hub.
Provenance
- Data as of
- How the figures are produced
- Computed at build time from the archive, then rolled up from the same per-corridor records each corridor page renders — so this index and those pages cannot disagree. Nothing here is recomputed by a second method.
Primary sources
- SendMoneyCompare quote archive — every provider’s live quotes, recorded every six hours
- How we review and rank providers
- Remittance Cost Index — the same providers ranked by cost
- The underlying table, as CSV — check any figure on this page against the row that produced it
Analysis by
Akif HazarviEditor-in-Chief
Akif Hazarvi is the editor-in-chief of SendMoneyCompare with 8+ years in fintech and cross-border payments.
Corrections and independence: figures move with the scrape, so cite the data date above rather than the date you read this. Where we have published something wrong and fixed it, it is logged in corrections. No provider can buy a ranking or a place in these datasets — see our editorial policy and methodology.