How to Reduce International Payment Costs: A Practical Guide for UK Businesses

Where the money actually goes

The World Bank defines the total cost of an international transfer as the sum of three things: the transfer fee charged when you send, a margin applied to the exchange rate when the money is converted, and, in some corridors, a further fee charged to the person who receives the funds. Only the first of these tends to appear clearly on screen. The exchange rate margin is baked into the rate you are quoted, so it is easy to miss.

That exchange rate margin is where a large share of the cost hides. The World Bank notes that some operators add a mark-up to the mid-market rate, and that doing so can make a transfer more expensive even when the upfront fee is low or nil. A payment can look cheap on its fee and still be expensive overall, because the money is converted at a worse rate than the true market price.

The chart below shows how a typical international payment can split. Treat it as illustrative of the pattern the World Bank describes rather than a fixed ratio, because the balance between fee and margin varies by provider, currency pair and amount.

The mid-market rate is your benchmark

You cannot judge whether a rate is fair without something to compare it against. That reference point is the mid-market rate, sometimes called the interbank rate. The World Bank describes it as the midpoint between the buy price and the sell price of a currency, in other words the rate banks use between themselves before any customer mark-up is added.

To find the true cost of a payment, take the mid-market rate for your currency pair, compare it to the rate your provider is offering, and express the difference as a percentage. Add any upfront fee. The combined number is your all-in cost, and it is the only figure worth comparing between providers. A quote with no transfer fee but a two percent rate margin is more expensive than one with a small flat fee and a rate close to the mid-market.

Ask every provider to disclose the mid-market rate they are using and the margin they apply on top of it. The Global Remittance Task Force has recommended that the total cost, including fees at both ends and the foreign exchange margin, be disclosed as a single upfront amount. Any provider that will not show you the margin against the mid-market rate is a provider whose real price you cannot see.

Why cross-border costs stay stubbornly high

International payments are expensive partly because of how they move. A payment between two banks that have no direct relationship often travels through one or more intermediary banks, a model known as correspondent banking. Each link in that chain can deduct a charge and apply its own timing, which adds cost and slows the payment down.

The scale of the challenge is widely recognised. The Bank of England's Governor, Andrew Bailey, told the Financial Stability Board Payments Summit in March 2026 that cross-border payments are still slow and expensive, especially when compared to increasingly effective domestic payments, and that the industry is far from reaching the targets the G20 set for 2027. Real progress has been made on plumbing, such as harmonising the ISO 20022 messaging standard and extending real-time settlement hours, but he acknowledged limited improvement to date for end users.

For a business, the practical takeaway is that friction in the system is not something you can remove, but it is something you can route around. Choosing providers and rails that avoid long correspondent chains, and timing payments to avoid weekend and cut-off penalties, is how you keep the system's inefficiency off your own bill.

What the World Bank data reveals about method

The clearest evidence for cutting costs comes from comparing how money is sent. In its Remittance Prices Worldwide report for the third quarter of 2025, the World Bank found that digital transfers averaged 4.59 percent, while non-digital transfers averaged 7.30 percent. Banks were the most expensive channel of all, at an average of 14.99 percent.

The message is consistent: the channel you choose has a larger effect on cost than almost any single negotiation. Sending through a bank branch or a cash-based agent tends to cost far more than sending digitally through a specialist provider. The same pattern shows in the instruments used to fund a transfer, where digital, card and account-based methods generally price below cash.

The bar chart below shows the World Bank's global averages for the third quarter of 2025. Use it as a reality check: if your business is paying materially more than the digital average on comparable routes, the cost is coming from your choice of channel, your provider's margin, or both.

Seven tactics to reduce international payment costs

Reducing cross-border costs is less about one clever trick and more about applying a handful of disciplines consistently. The steps below follow directly from where the cost sits and from the patterns in the World Bank data. None of them requires new technology, and most can be actioned this quarter.

The single most valuable habit is comparing every quote against the mid-market rate. Once you can see the true all-in cost, the other tactics fall into place, because you can measure whether a provider, a rail or a batching change actually saves money rather than just appearing to.

The targets that should shape your expectations

The G20 and the Financial Stability Board have set formal cost targets for the industry, and they are a useful yardstick for what good looks like. For remittances, the target is for the global average cost of sending USD 200 to fall to no more than 3 percent by 2030, with no single corridor costing more than 5 percent. For retail cross-border payments more broadly, the target is a global average of no more than 1 percent by the end of 2027, with no corridor above 3 percent.

These numbers are helpful even though they are industry goals rather than guarantees. If the ambition for the whole market is a 3 percent remittance average and a 1 percent retail average, then a business routinely paying 6 percent or more has clear room to negotiate or switch. The World Bank's third-quarter 2025 average of 6.36 percent shows how far the market as a whole still sits above target, which is precisely why comparison and channel choice pay off.

The table below summarises the official targets alongside the most recent World Bank average, so you can position your own costs against both the current market and where the industry is trying to reach.

Conclusion

The cost of paying abroad is largely a cost of visibility. The World Bank's data shows a global average of 6.36 percent in the third quarter of 2025, but it also shows that digital channels cost far less than banks and cash, and that a large part of the total hides inside the exchange rate rather than in the fee. Once you measure every quote against the mid-market rate, the expensive routes become obvious and the cheaper ones become defensible.

For a UK business, reducing international payment costs is a repeatable discipline rather than a one-off project: benchmark the rate, compare providers on all-in cost, send digitally, use local rails, avoid double conversion, batch, and time your transfers. Applied consistently, those steps move your own costs towards the 3 percent and 1 percent targets the G20 has set for the whole market. To see how Nasara Connect handles cross-border payments transparently, explore our payments product or request a demo.

Frequently asked questions