This is a test version — we need your feedback to get it right! Write to

TransferWise: Rebel, What is Your Cause?

TransferWise Money Transfer: billboard

Tale of Two TransferWises

“Revolution is a tough business. You can‘t make it wearing white gloves and with clean hands”

– Lenin

TransferWise’s origins are usually described like this. Entrepreneur from Estonia, who was the first Skype employee, got tired of paying huge fees to banks for transferring money from UK to Estonia. So he came up with a brilliant idea of matching remittance senders and receivers in the same country. TransferWise was launched with an office sauna and employees who don’t mind getting undressed to take on banks, evil entities with no value for consumers. The startup got funding from crème de la crème of investors like Peter Thiel, Richard Branson, Ben Horowitz, becoming the only “unicorn” in consumer cross-border transfers with $1.6B valuation:

Remittance providers - Latest Market Cap or Valuation, Dec 24 2017

As with any good story, and TransferWise is a particular standout in otherwise PR-mundane Fintech collection, this one has all the key elements: suffering helpless victims, conniving old despots, and young-good-looking savior with clever tricks. And with like most of good stories, TransferWise’s PR spiel is somewhat accurate on surface. So let’s start with what is true.

TransferWise Money Transfer: Things to Love

TransferWise is indeed the coolest money transmitter in the world. This startup is going well beyond mandatory foosball and ping-pong tables in their offices. Its founders and employees were happy to run naked through the world’s most famous financial district in freezing February. Having sauna in HQ is TransferWise’s another distinction:

From early days, TransferWise focused on exposing “hidden” fees by banks and money transmitters. It is a potentially deceptive practice when most providers are advertising to consumers “zero fee” money transfer while charging FX markup. Despite being a lonely voice on this front among competitors, TransferWise continues persevering pushing for legislative changes in UK. This TransferWise mission was clearly displayed to its customers from the early days in 2011:

TransferWise front page November 2011


TransferWise’s another distinctive cultural characteristic is obsessive persistence with trying new approaches. Similarly to other best-known startups, it didn’t have much traction in the first two years, reaching less than $10 million in monthly volumes…

TransferWise end of 2012


… but it kept experimenting across consumer sub-segments trying various out marketing techniques. TransferWise’s experimentation velocity was at such scale that when a monthly volume jumped to $50 million the company’s management couldn’t initially tell what led to that. While many Fintech startups and even large financial services companies could pilot multiple ideas at once, TransferWise is uniquely capable of quickly learning from mistakes:

When it comes to organizational practices, TransferWise is also on the forefront. The startup fosters a teamwork centered on perfecting the user experience and hires distinctively young-smart people, empowering them with autonomy:

Employees love working in such mission-driven, fun, and effective environment:


Such autonomy also enables fast scaling (see the list of currently supported corridors here). For example, while WorldRemit took couple years acquiring licenses in the US, TransferWise began offering services right away via an intermediary, initially in 2014 with PreCash, which was fined $150,000 for working with TransferWise, and later in 2015 with CFSB:

TransferWise Money Transfer USA License CFSB

In another example, due to a currency instability, TransferWise stopped support for Nigeria in 2016 but returned in October 2017 by sharing risk and revenue with a local partner, Flutterwave.

After a year, TransferWise was already transferring $2 billion out of USA. By March 2017, TransferWise had US licenses in 39 states, missing few states that take longer such as New York and Illinois or are too small to matter (latest status is here). For states with licenses, TransferWise only needed a bank for a correspondent account, and it had to continue relying on CFSB for the rest:

TransferWise bank accounts in USA - March 3, 2017

Source for March 3rd, 2017:

TransferWise grew even faster in Canada – a year after the launch in Spring 2016, it was already transferring $2 billion approaching 10% share of the country’s outbound cross-border market. Its growth strategy is centered around a referral channel by creating a superb experience for its customers. On SaveOnSend’s blind calls during the provider’s early days in USA, TransferWise’s phone reps stood out in their ability to quickly understand and personally resolve issues, doing it pleasantly and with some humor. Some of their mis-serviced customers even get chocolates:

TransferWise Chocolates Sorry

TransferWise’s approach to driving referral growth is also innovative. The company is not just testing various referral amounts and how to split those between an existing customer who initiates a referral and a new customer who accepts it. TransferWise goes further by thinking how to engage customers in acting as its virtual army of individual PR agents:

TransferWise Viral innovation - June 2015

TransferWise Viral innovation – June 2015

TransferWise then analyzes data for referral reasons and applies it in marketing campaigns to drive more referrals:

TW Customers reasons for Referrals - AUD, Nov 1 2017


TransferWise also has transparent pricing (see here). For USA, they are charging a fixed amount for first few hundred dollars and a percentage fee for larger amounts. SaveOnSend can confirm, at least for USA to China, India, Mexico, and Philippines, that TransferWise, on average, doesn’t charge an FX markup:

TransferWise FX Markup USA-to-India 2015 through August

TransferWise’s pricing is also much more stable than any other well-known provider. Compare it with unfriendly to consumer pricing strategy of companies like Xoom where a fee could go up or down 2-3x day-to-day:

Xoom Mexico FX Markup till June 23 2017

TransferWise is often, but not always, one of the cheapest providers for larger amounts ($300+) for a bank-to-bank method in many large corridors where customers are not as price sensitive and not conducting frequent price comparisons. See below comparison of total margins among providers for typical transfer amounts in the world’s largest corridors, USA-to-Mexico, or for USA-to-Philippines:


Comparison of Providers: USA to Mexico, $500 transfer, bank-to-bank linked accounts, December 6, 2016

Comparison of Providers - USA-to-Philippines, USD-PHP, $500, bank-to-bank, Feb 17 2017

Comparison of providers: USA-to-Philippines, USD-PHP, $500, bank-to-bank, Feb 17 2017

TransferWise competitors could temporarily drop prices in order to grow its share in a particular corridor with a hope that investors and customers don’t get the big picture:

MoneyGram FX Markup Philippines and Mexico till June 23 2017

Other Fintech startups love to talk about their profound empathy for poor. So, naturally, when Mexican migrants panicked after Trump’s election, same providers… raised prices:

USA to Mexico - FX Markups across providers around Nov 2016 election

TransferWise never mooches of poor consumers for PR purposes, and during same month it chose to act:

True to its price-reduction-and-transparency mission, in October 2017, TransferWise began highlighting higher fees for card payments and dropped prices out of UK:

TW Price Drop Oct 2017 - Monito Blog


Combination of these differentiators resulted in a phenomenal and profitable growth with TransferWise becoming the world’s 3rd largest remittances company by mid 2017.

In October 2017, TransferWise’s exceptional performance was validated with the $280 million funding round, by far the largest among cross-border money transfer startups for consumers:

Funding Rounds of Remittance Startups, Nov 2017

By January 2018, TransferWise was claiming a 15% market share of the UK outbound market…

Now, let’s look under the hood.

TransferWise Strategy

1. Segmentation

TransferWise’s co-founder, Taavet Hinrikus, explains the company’s strategic focus during this 2015 AMA on Reddit:

TransferWise Money Transfer: co-founder quote

TransferWise Money Transfer view on competition

In the above context, “non-remittance” is the type of cross-border money transfers that are sent by white-collar expats, retirees, or students, rather than by typical blue-collar migrants. Therefore, TransferWise’s average sent amount is $2,300 per transfer which is two-three times more than an average amount sent by remittance startups like WorldRemit, Azimo, or Remitly. However, it is much smaller than the average transaction amount of CurrencyFair ($5-6 thousand dollars) or of majority of large banks:

Average Transaction Size - USA Outbound Remittances by top banks 2014-2017 1H

True to its focus, TransferWise’s language availability and advertising is mostly targeting European expats:


TransferWise supported languages as of September 2016

2. Differentiation

From the same 2015 AMA on Reddit:

TransferWise Money Transfer: co-founder quote on differentiation, April 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: co-founder view on competitive differentiation

Or here is a quote from this interview in June 2016 comparing Western Union and TransferWise pricing:

“Hinrikus says the company [Western Union] charges 10 times more than TransferWise, on average…”

Or watch this PR interview from October 2016 where TransferWise claims being 80% cheaper than other cross-border providers from USA.

By mid 2017, TransferWise slightly downgrade its claim to “7x”:

Let’s now reconcile this “confident” statement with reality. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, TransferWise is indeed often the cheapest provider for bank-to-bank transfers for amounts above $300. However, it is not the case for sending smaller amounts:

Comparison of Providers - USA-to-Philippines, $100, bank-to-bank, July 15, 2017

Comparison of Providers: money transfer USA-to-Philippines, sending $100, bank-to-bank, July 15, 2017

It is also not the case in some of the world’s largest corridors. For example, for USA-to-China:


Comparison of providers: money transfers from USA to China, USD-to-CNY, $1,000, bank-to-bank, October 12, 2016

In the USA-to-India corridor, with it uniquely sophisticated senders, TransferWise is not even in Top-5 among the cheapest providers:

Comparison of Providers - USA-to-India, $1,500, bank-to-bank, Jan 1, 2018

Comparison of providers: USA-to-India, $1,500, bank-to-bank; Jan 1, 2018

That is absolutely fine – basically, this corridor is unique on a global scale (read this SaveOnSend article), and TransferWise doesn’t want to lose money in order to gain a market share. But let’s look at this Facebook advertisement targeting specifically that corridor or a generic NYC Subway advertisement from TransferWise’s launch in USA. What do you think TransferWise means when using “90%” and “8x” comparisons:

TransferWise Money Transfer: Facebook ads for sending money from USA to India, March 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: Facebook ads for sending money from USA to India, March 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: Facebook ads for sending money from USA to India, April 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: Facebook ads for sending money from USA to India, April 2015

TrasnferWise Twitter ad for money transfer to India, April 22, 2015

TrasnferWise Twitter ad for money transfer to India, April 22, 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: billboards in New York city subway, March 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: billboards in New York city subway, March 2015

Or, here is an example of TransferWise’s advertisement on Google, again claiming “up to 90%” savings (compare with the wording of its competitors ads):

TransferWise Money Transfer Google Ads April 26, 2015

Also, take a look at how TransferWise presents expected savings on its landing page, points to “bank” with almost 4% difference in the exchange rates and $46.58 fee:

TransferWise Money Transfer: money transfer form USA to India, landing page pricing comparison, April 15, 2015

TransferWise: money transfer form USA to India, landing page pricing comparison, April 15, 2015

As you can see, TransferWise is conveniently comparing its pricing with banks’ wire transfer service (similarly, it conveniently compares its online pricing with Western Union’s offline service). You might remember from the earlier comparison table that no provider was charging such large fees for sending money to India. And what were top competitors’ exchange rates around same time? Western Union – 61.98, MoneyGram – 62.21, Xoom – 61.5, Ria – 62.17, TransFast – 61.9. Hence, with the ads you saw above, by referring to “money transfer companies” instead of “banks” and claiming being “the cheapest… to India”, TransferWise knowingly misleads consumers while shamelessly berating competitors for being “unfair” and “hiding.” We requested TransferWise to stop such practice, but to no avail:

TransferWise Money Transfer: request to stop misleading ads for money transfer form USA to India, March 3, 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: request to stop misleading ads for money transfer from USA to India, March 3, 2015

TransferWise got reprimanded by the UK government in 2015 and then again in May 2016 for misleading ads. What was TransferWise explanation? It is simple:

TransferWise Mea Culpa July 21 2017


3. P2P: reality vs. fiction

Rumors about P2P for international remittances on a global scale being a slight myth only began trickling in around later part of 2014. The reason it has taken awhile is simple: startups like TransferWise and its B2B counterpart CurrencyFair were founded with the initial focus on transfers among intra-Western-Europe expats. Those flows tend to be highly balanced, and, hence, allow for a relatilvely high P2P ratios according to CurrencyFair’s CEO:

TransferWise Money Transfer: comment by CurrencyFair CEO, Apr 20, 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: potential of P2P market

But after few months of operating in USA, TransferWise began to realize the fundamental difference of working in other corridors. Just one example: #1 global remittance corridor, USA-to-Mexico, carries $27 billion in annual consumer transfers. How much is sent back? $1B. See quotes by TransferWise’s general manager in USA, Joe Cross, and by Taavet:

TransferWise Money Transfer: quote by TransferWise Head of USA, Joe Cross, Apr 8, 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: limits of P2P market

TransferWise Money Transfer: quote by TransferWise Head of USA, Joe Cross, Apr 8, 2015

TransferWise Money Transfer: limits of P2P

By June 2016, TransferWise provided a factual reflection of remittance balance flows that would be applicable for any provider, “P2P” or not:

“… it finds true peer-to-peer matches on at least 60 percent of its transaction volume on 20 “routes” among Europe, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia… almost every transfer into pounds is matched 100 percent peer-to-peer…”

Another related insight is to review #1 source of complaints by TransferWise customers – it is about how relatively long it takes for a recipient to get money.

On a cost side, “P2P” doesn’t mean much either – let’s keep in mind that all providers are trying to minimize a flow of internal cross-border transfers. It is not like TransferWise literally waits for $1,000 to arrive from UK to USA to initiate an exact transfer of $1,000 from USA to UK. To ensure availability of funds at any point, TransferWise cannot exist without banks, specifically, WellsFargo in USA.

Other providers including Western Union are also, obviously, not initiating bank transfers every time a request is made. All providers are trying to estimate how much money and in which currency required in countries of their operation and buy-sell those on a frequent basis. The largest providers also have hedging operations to mitigate against an FX volatility (read this SaveOnSend article for more details). Moreover, for some corridors where there is an option to transfer without FX conversion (e.g., USD-to-USD), incumbents offer a similar pricing structure, e.g, for USA-to-China or USA-to-Philippines.

4. Growth channels

Hiding from investors and charging users to slow down growth, WhatsApp set the bar for what is meant by “viral” expansion. TransferWise wants us to believe that its growth has similar roots:

TransferWise Money Transfer: Slide 12,

TransferWise Money Transfer: Slide 12,

In reality, TransferWise is deploying standard channels for acquiring customers among remittance providers: referral program, partnerships, affiliate marketing, billboards, social, PR, SEO. Such non-viral growth is expensive for TransferWise making marketing costs the highest spend category:

TransferWise Cost FY 2015 2016


Yes, TransferWise’s referral program seems to be innovative, data-driven, and, most importantly, effective – according to TransferWise, this channel might be bringing ~50% of new customers. See a visual representation below and explanation here:

TransferWise Vizualization of Connections July 2017

But paid “referral program” coupled with heavy advertising-PR-SEO-social and other acquisition techniques obviously does not equal “viral” growth or “evangelism.” We first used WhatsApp or Skype without any financial incentive or any sales-marketing overlay. And our blogs would not be spammed by customers of those companies:

TransferWise Customer Spam on SaveOnSend blog

So TransferWise’s growth is not really viral but a referral-centric. And it is juiced up with a common industry toolkit for growing a customer base. That is fine, most companies overemphasize how much their customers love them while methodically applying various acquisition and marketing techniques.

But, unfortunately, we again see TransferWise taking “misleading” to a whole new level. Here are the articles in The Guardian with positive mentions of TransferWise during a 5-month period, repeating same PR spiel: Dec 11, 2014, Jan 26, 2015, Feb 3, 2015, Mar 3, 2015, Apr 8, 2015, Apr 24, 2015. The pinnacle of “Guardian package” is this podcast – please listen to first few minutes, it is such a blatant PR that it is actually funny. Such PR channel, while not to the same extreme, is leveraged by some other remittance providers. What makes TransferWise’s approach more unethical is presenting such articles as if they were a genuine reporting: here, here.

5. TransferWise’s performance

Media loves to repeat TransferWise’s PR story of disruption and imminent threat to Western Union. Let’s look at the facts. TransferWise claims to be growing very rapidly, enough to surpass Xoom’s monthly volume around March of 2015 and Ria Money Transfer in Q2, 2017:

By late 2017, TransferWise was transferring around $2 billion dollars monthly with 900 employees:

TransferWise employees Jan 8 2018


TransferWise is also rapidly diversifying across top outbound destinations, opening hubs in US and Asia and reaching 750 corridors by November 2017.

TransferWise Revenue Distribution by Region 2015 - 2017 Q1

When considering revenues for digital cross-border money transfers, TransferWise is still behind Xoom and digital arms of Western Union and Ria Money Transfer due to TransferWise’s much smaller average margin, but it is catching up fast. In October 2017, for the first time, TransferWise’s revenue grew faster in absolute terms than of Western Union’s Digital arm:

Money Transfer Providers Digital X-border Revenue Comparison 2014-2017 Q3

However, considering offline transactions, which still dominate cross-border money transfers, TransferWise’s revenue level is still barely noticeable vis-a-vis incumbents:

Money Transfer Providers Total X-border Revenue Comparison 2014-2017 Q3

So, no disruption just yet. But could TransferWise catch up with Western Union’s revenues in the next 5 years? Here are the key arguments:

  1. Today, TransferWise only supports bank-to-bank transfers. Outside of Indians and expats from developed countries, receiving funds into a bank account will remain relevant only for a small portion of consumers in each corridor. The transition from offline to online method of sending money is crawling at 1-2% per year.

  2. In TransferWise’s very limited space of bank-to-bank transfers, other top corridors will be eventually following in USA-to-India footsteps by slashing margins (they haven’t done it yet because customers in the most of the large corridors are not price sensitive and don’t do much of a price comparison). As a result, TransferWise couldn’t rely on its “cheapest” differentiation. Other providers might afford to break even for this send-receive method because they also provide other, more profitable send-receive options, but TransferWise would have to raise significantly more capital.

  3. Based on our conversations with top remittance providers, Europe hasn’t been their top priority before 2015. As margins in the US volumes stagnating, TransferWise’s much larger competitors are inevitable becoming more proactive in its back yard. For example, in early June of 2015, similarly to its approach in USA, Western Union slashed UK’s FX markups to India which resulted in a lower margin vis-a-vis TransferWise (check Western Union’s terms here).

  4. As of second half 2016, TransferWise claimed to break even and begin generating profits. Such impressive claim doesn’t seem to impede its growth trajectory – as of May 2017, TransferWise was still expecting to grow 150% year-over-year:

TransferWise Performance 2011-2017


TransferWise has clearly been much stronger at execution than other startups (see this SaveOnSend article). But the biggest mystery remained: why TransferWise felt the need to cut corners while berating competitors and generating fakes, like this ironically titled fake map of “real-time” transactions:

… or listen to this Fintech Insider podcast from October 2017 where TransferWise managers promote its new price comparison tool. They claimed that even if TransferWise’s pricing was not the best, the tool would transparently point a user to the cheapest provider. How did this tool really work? It made up a wrong-higher price for Western Union and didn’t show other competitors with better-than-TransferWise prices:

TW site comparison vs. WU Oct 28 2017

Comparison of WU pricing in the TW comparison tool vs. WU website, October 28 2017

SaveOnSend twitted above feedback, and, surprisingly TransferWise responded within 2 weeks…

… taking a bold step in recommending a dreaded Western Union as a lower-cost alternative:

TransferWise Comparison USA to India Nov 10 2017

Source: TransferWise Comparison tool, November 10 2017

So is this Rebel of Fintech starting on a new chapter in its fascinating journey? A more ethical, a bit less edgy, but, hopefully, not too boring. What do you think?

Additional reading list

Comparing TransferWise with other remittance startups

Techniques that TransferWise and other providers use for nudging consumers

WSJ interview with Kristo Kaarmann – September 22, 2016

In Summary

Hopefully, you found this overview helpful and feel more confident in your choices of whether or not to use TransferWise. Please let us know if we got anything wrong or did a good job – leave your comment in the section below.

We will be keeping this post regularly updated, so come back soon!

  • well done, thanks for putting this together!

  • Ravi

    Great article and analysis.

  • JibberJabberFule

    Excellent! I’m studying on the MIT Fintech Certificate course: Future commerce and yours is best resource I’ve found for cutting through the hype

    • Thank you so much for your kind comment! Actually, that is why we started this blog – there was too much misinformation from “experts” and companies, and we couldn’t find any objective source that would explore such questions in depth. If you come across something comparably insightful, please let us know.

    • John Smith Jr

      hype = lies

  • ZandarKoad

    Wow, this is great. I think Transferwise is part of the latest digital bubble. It does have value (I use it) but I think it is overvalued.

  • John Smith Jr

    As always need to assume everyone has a agenda – I am surprised though that some hungry lawyer has not gone after Transferwise with a class action lawsuit for deceptive trade practices – seems the FCC/FTC should be all over this type of manipulative and deceptive practices – maybe then the vulture capitalists would stop feeding the machine.

  • Joe Riker

    Xoom no longer accepts prepaid cards. The same cards VA and other government pensions get paid on. Xoom wont survive. There management is ignorant.

  • Will Madden

    Re-reading this one today. Fantastic article!

    • Hello Will, thank you for reading and kind words.

  • Willy Nsubuga Mutenza

    As a marketing consultant who has served all the BIG five MTOs, I found the article very resourceful especially decoding TransferWise’s fake PR and Techniques.

  • Chukwunonso Arinze

    First I want to thank you for your insightful articles and blogs on the remittance industry. They are very thorough. As you highlighted, one problem with P2P platforms is their inability to match transactions as most times, money goes from one country in one direction than in the other. To balance this flow out, “P2P” companies like Transferwise, and CurrencyFair have to buy the balance from market makers the interbank market. However, one question I would like to know are who are these market makers who Transferwise and CurrencyFair go to. Are they banks, forex brokers, private companies, etc? My second question is why is it that these market makers do not like to deal with end users. So for example what has precluded market makers from coming on P2P platforms like that of Transferwise or CurrencyFair to provide liquidity directly to end users. Is there a reason for this? Is it counterparty risks, KYC/AML requirements or are there any other factors preventing them from trading directly with end users.

    • Hi Arinze, thanks for reading and asking great questions. MTO specialists like TransferWise or Western Union typically work with banks to ensure that there is sufficient funding for cases when in vs. out volumes are mismatched. Such pre-funding arrangement usually requires capital, so when TransferWise or Remitly raise a new round, some part of it is used for this purpose. There are other intermediaries who facilitate such services but they play much smaller role than banks. Read more about MTOs and their models here: . Banks provide B2C services too and have a substantial market share, comparable to MTOs. Read about banks’ approach to both B2C and B2B x-border money transfers here:


    Do you have any source to show that remittance between intra western countries are fairly balanced as cited above? Any references for this statement?

    • It is a notion that is being corroborated by Fintech players and banks, but we haven’t seen anything publicly available that would be as robust as World Bank’s tracking for remittances. The use cases across Western Countries are different than mostly remittances (although, there is some of that too: But taking a step back, there seems to be much more Mexicans/Chinese/Indians/Filipinos… coming to US/UK/UAE/… and sending money home than a reverse case. For Germans/French/Spaniards going to US/UK/Australians, there does not seem to be a similarly sizable disbalance.

Advertising Disclosure: is an independent, advertising-supported comparison service. SaveOnSend may be compensated in exchange for featured placement of certain sponsored products and services, or your clicking on links posted on this website.