Money transfers to Latin America and the Caribbean exemplify global economic integration through financial payment rails. In 2024, nearly $170 billion was remitted to the region in small-dollar amounts through a wide network of remittance service providers, or money transfer operators (MTOs)—80 percent of it from the United States.

The flow of money, once considered largely informal and expensive three decades ago, is now managed through a competitive marketplace that offers accessible, affordable, and innovative services.

This briefing provides an overview of the money transfer industry in the U.S.–Latin America and Caribbean (U.S.-LAC) corridor, followed by a review of key challenges anticipated in 2025.

Key takeaways

• The most active money transfer operators in Latin America and the Caribbean have a global presence.
• Eight money transfer companies account for more than 70 percent of the market.
• There are fewer MTOs than in the early 2000s, but they represent a mix of business models.
• Digital and cash-originated transactions are now almost evenly divided, though they are not entirely separate or mutually exclusive channels.
• Expanding relationships through broader payment networks, diverse origination methods, and especially reliable deposit mechanisms at the destination—as well as the adoption of alternative currency options such as stablecoins or cryptocurrencies—are key factors driving company growth.
• Migration patterns, return flows, and deportations will continue to influence the volume of transfers sent to the region, particularly for certain nationalities.
• Legislative proposals to tax remittances remain in flux and vary from state to state.
• The outlook for 2025 anticipates growth of up to 5 percent; however, depending on the severity of a potential U.S. recession—alongside declining migration and rising deportations—growth may fall short of that estimate.

A Competitive Remittance Marketplace

Companies in the money transfer business have consolidated into a sector that competes to offer reliable services to remitters. By 2025, a wide range of companies is expected to participate in the intermediation of remittances. These include both longstanding firms with over two decades of operation and newer entrants, offering either cash-originated transactions or digital transfers through various innovative methods. In total, approximately twenty companies may handle 90 percent of the U.S. outbound remittance market.

A Global Presence that Started in Latin America and the Caribbean

The leading competitors offering remittance transfers have become global brands, with a significant presence worldwide. Market share estimates of key companies suggest that ten firms manage approximately 80 percent of flows from the United States–Latin America and Caribbean corridor. These companies—including Western Union, PayPal/Xoom, Viamericas, Remitly, MoneyGram, Ria, and Intermex—have global footprints, with their earliest operations often beginning in the region (see Table 1).

Western Union, a pioneer in money transfers, began its international expansion in the 1990s in Mexico and Central America through a partnership with exclusive payment agent Piero Coen, who founded Airpak to facilitate payments in the region. Western Union later expanded to nearly every country, establishing a strong presence in Russia and the former Soviet republics. In Latin America and the Caribbean, through the early 2000s, Western Union competed with small, country-specific companies such as Gigante Express, King Express, Delgado Travel, and the U.S. Post Office’s Directo a México platform. Since then, new competitors have entered the market, including MoneyGram, while others struggled to remain active during the first decade of the 2000s. Some were unable to compete and ultimately exited the industry. Although Western Union continues to lead global payments, its market share has diminished due to increasing competition.

Except for Western Union and MoneyGram, which are global leaders, most of the leading money transfer operators in the U.S.–LAC context have been operating for less than thirty years. Smaller companies have remained active by maintaining control over specific country corridors—for example, Laparkan in Guyana and Jamaica National Money Services for Jamaica.

The companies listed above have remained strong players in the Western Hemisphere’s money transfer landscape. These businesses have operated for more than twenty years—some longer than others—in the U.S.-LAC region.

As the table above shows, by the last quarter of 2024, the leading competitor was Remitly—a company that began operating in 2013 in the Philippines and gradually expanded to Latin America and the Caribbean five years later. It became a key competitor in the market, holding 14 percent of the market before going public, and reached nearly 23 percent market share by 2024.

Viamericas, founded in 2000, is another example of an emerging twenty-first-century business. Over the span of a decade, it built a solid footprint in the United States and Latin American payment markets, nearly doubling its market share in five years—from 5 percent to 10 percent by 2024. Another notable company is Xoom, a pioneer in internet-based transactions founded in 2001. It became a subsidiary of PayPal in 2017 and now operates as a standalone remittance app while also powering PayPal’s in-app remittance service. When Xoom entered the market, it competed directly with Western Union, making significant inroads.

Intermex, which initially maintained a two-country focus (Mexico and Guatemala), has since expanded globally and grown beyond its original markets. The company has also gone public to support its continued growth. Other important players include DolFinTech and FelixPago, both of which hold notable market shares and are advancing in the direction of digital solutions for first- and last-mile payments.

DolFinTech—an operation with nearly three decades of experience—resulted from a merger of four companies: Barri, DolEx, Quisqueyana, and Europhil. It is now one of the largest privately held money transfer companies, with transactions originating from the United States, Canada, and Spain to Latin America and the Caribbean. DolFinTech serves both retail customers who prefer cash and those who utilize digital channels.

FelixPago, on the other end of the digital spectrum, entered the market in 2022 with a model that few expected to succeed: offering remittances through the WhatsApp platform. Two years later, it is processing transactions in the ten-digit dollar range. Why have some companies succeeded in this segment while others have not? For instance, FelixPago gained traction among WhatsApp users, whereas platforms like Twit Pay (2009) and Facebook’s various remittance initiatives—including its most recent in 2023—struggled to gain similar momentum.

Factors of Success 30-year Timeline

Industry performance has been shaped by a mix of practices and developments.

In the early 2000s, more than fifty money transfer operators were competing for a foothold in the business. Over time, companies such as MoneyGram, Ria, Vigo, Orlandi Valuta, La Nacional, Dolex, and Uniteller (created in 1993, originally as an originator and later transitioning into an aggregator like Transnetwork), among others, sought to maintain control of the market.

Uniteller, Transnetwork, and Bancomer Transfer Services evolved into backend processors, integrating existing MTOs into broader payment networks and successfully enhancing regionwide payments.

For a decade, the focus remained on attracting new clients by expanding beyond Mexico, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Central America, while also retaining existing remitters. By the end of the 2000s, technological innovation had become ubiquitous across the industry and integral to operations. Small companies like Ikobo, in the early 2000s, attempted to enter the market by offering prepaid cards and web-based payment platforms, but consumer demand at the time was not yet ready for these solutions.

MoneyGram stands out as a case study within this evolving marketplace. Once Western Union’s main competitor, the company faced performance fluctuations amidst management changes during the twenty-five years when competition in the remittance sector was defined by both growth and resilience. When the 2009 recession hit, MoneyGram was significantly impacted and lost market share—creating space for new competitors and for companies at a tipping point to grow on par with MoneyGram and Ria.

The 2010s and early 2020s were marked by a convergence of patterns: technological innovation in payment platforms (cards and internet-based systems), stricter compliance regulations affecting money service businesses (including derisking and consumer protection policies), increased mergers and acquisitions, and growing demand for remittances. This was particularly notable during the economic recovery that triggered a new wave of migration between 2012 and 2018.

Companies like WorldRemit (founded in 2010 by development expert Ismail Ahmed) and Xoom (founded in 2001) emerged during this period with growing influence. Later, Remitly (founded in 2011) gradually became a third or fourth major internet-based competitor alongside Western Union.

In the current decade, business consolidation has continued across several companies, while some country-focused firms—such as Jamaica National Money Services, La Nacional, and Intermex—have successfully retained their market share.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought about a significant shift toward digital transactions, accelerating the adoption of online money transfers. This shift, however, was followed by a return to agent-based transfers later in the year, as merchant locations reopened to the public. From a broader payments context, digital transactions have become ubiquitous, although their market share has yet to surpass that of cash transfers.

By early 2025, there were fewer money transfer operators (MTOs) in the U.S.-LAC market. Seven companies now handled more than 80 percent of transaction volume, with 56 percent of these transfers relying on agent-based methods. This points to a dynamic market, with fewer competitors than a decade earlier, when at least 30 MTOs were actively operating. It is important to note that the volume share of a particular transfer method does not imply that these systems are mutually exclusive. A sender’s choice of transfer method varies depending on the options available and the sender’s needs. Meanwhile, money transfer companies adapt to consumer preferences while seeking optimal revenue solutions.

Overall, technology does not appear to be a substitute for cash origination; rather, it serves as a tool that helps improve market efficiencies in processing, compliance, consumer behavior, and financial settlements.

In the first decade of the 2000s, the cost of sending money was seen as both a policy and business problem. However, decades later, it has become an issue tied to the business model. The cost of sending money to Latin America and the Caribbean has continued to decrease, though in smaller proportions, due to the fixed operating costs associated with commissions to agents and foreign currency expenses. As of 2025, the unweighted average cost is 3.67 percent across the region. However, the weighted average—considering the most typical methods—drops to 3 percent. Since most senders remit more than $300, the effective cost of sending is below 2.4 percent. In turn, the pressure among companies is to diversify their operations, commercial strategies, and services to maximize revenue through methods other than pricing.

Source: Central Banks and World Bank Pricing Database

One common thread among the companies that are succeeding in the market is their persistence in having confidence in their business strategy and their commitment to sticking to their plan while self-correcting as part of a comprehensive approach to operations. These businesses do not compartmentalize compliance, marketing, internal processing, and management; rather, they view these elements as part of a unified whole. Additionally, the leadership and senior management of these companies clearly understand that the core of their revenue approach depends not on pricing but on the transaction’s value and the remitter’s intention to transfer funds consistently and without disruptions.

Some Determinants of Remitting in 2025

The year began with key developments in the marketplace, including companies’ considerations on how to accelerate digital payments—particularly increasing transfers deposited into digital or bank accounts of recipients, adopting or integrating cryptocurrency or stablecoin for transaction settlement, and using innovative tools to offer sending services. Two other key issues facing the industry include the effects of immigration policy, particularly the deportation and return prospects for thousands of migrants in the United States, and legislation taxing remittances. As a result, the expectation for growth may decelerate to 2 percent.

Diversification

For most MTOs, growth has entailed diversifying their operations. One strategy involves expanding the growth of originating digital payments through marketing, building alliances, or increasing the number of countries in which they operate. A recent example is FelixPago, which secured a new investment of $75 million to expand its operations to other countries and services, continuing its innovative approach by using WhatsApp to offer remittance services. Companies that offer agent-based transfers are, in turn, promoting digital transfers.

For the majority of these MTOs, increasing account deposits in the destination countries is a priority. While remittance payments continue to be largely in cash, financial inclusion is rising, and FinTech companies and banks are seeking to increase revenue through digital payments, making remittance recipients a key focus. Although MTOs can establish the technical infrastructure to promote deposits (which most do), the challenge persists in the region. In Central America and the Dominican Republic, account deposits remain low—under 30 percent in some areas (e.g., 20 percent in Guatemala, 29 percent in the Dominican Republic).

Deepening this option offers greater efficiency and cost-reduction opportunities that can be passed on to consumers. However, it also increases the amount sent or provides more services to senders, including payments to their Social Security retirement accounts. While Colombia has increased the number of digital users, the use of digital financial services remains low in Central America. This is partly because digital wallets are limited by the low presence of FinTech companies, few connections with merchant networks, and small merchants. Additionally, mobile banking accounts are tied to checking accounts, which are owned by less than 15 percent of Central Americans. FinTech companies are seeking to expand their reach, and these companies are cementing partnerships with MTOs and merchants in the region to bring together remittance payments with the financial network ecosystem through wallets.

Other companies are seeking to adopt cryptocurrency as a payment service available to both senders and recipients, while also using stablecoins for currency exchange and settlements within their internal transaction processes.

There is still debate among industry players as to whether accepting cryptocurrency is a viable business opportunity. However, some companies have already adopted the method—for example, MoneyGram, FelixPago, and Xoom-PayPal.

Migration

The current outlook for migration points to a gradual slowdown, which decelerated even further in 2025.

One consequence is that the annual number of senders in 2025 will be a fraction of the year before, thereby reducing the propensity to remit among migrants.

Accompanying this trend is the prospect of migrant deportations and returns, including individuals who were beneficiaries of humanitarian parole, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in some cases, and others who choose to return voluntarily. However, the number of migrants returning may reflect a broader mix of nationalities, including some with smaller representation, such as Venezuela.

In terms of potential deportations, those most at risk are individuals from nationalities with deportation orders issued since 2018—particularly those who are more easily located or tracked. Assuming (a) all other policies remain unchanged (humanitarian parole, asylum denials, TPS renewals, among others), (b) 20 percent of migrants with recent deportation orders are detained and returned (a figure that immigration enforcement authorities could manage through the rational deployment of manpower), and (c) the already declining migration patterns since 2023 continue, slowing arrivals by 10 percent year over year, the net effect would be a significant decline in new remittance senders. As a result, remittance growth from the United States could fall to half of what it was in 2024.

Including nationalities under humanitarian parole, the number of people returning may rise depending on how many choose to return, adjust their immigration status, or remain without legal status and risk deportation. These figures do not include individuals covered by Temporary Protected Status.

Regulation

An important discussion concerns regulatory frameworks related to the prevention of financial risk, anti-money laundering measures, licensing challenges, and other regulatory trends associated with federal and state revenue. Experts are assessing the risks of these developments as the year progresses and political debates continue. As of the beginning of the year, at least seven state legislatures have proposed taxes on remittances sent through money service businesses, along with one bill introduced in the U.S. Senate.

Many of these proposed measures may ultimately fail to pass, as legislators become increasingly aware of the significant negative impact such taxes would have on consumers and law enforcement. The primary concern is the increased risk of remittance transfers shifting to informal, unregulated channels. For example, FinCEN’s Geographic Targeting Order, which requires certain cities to “file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) with FinCEN at a $200 threshold,” may produce unintended consequences. Moreover, the current political climate reflects a growing awareness of the importance and scale of remittance flows.

What Growth Can Be Expected in 2025?

So far, remittances during the first quarter of 2025 indicate that growth will be smaller than in 2024, but without significant deviations. Countries in Central America are showing greater growth in the first quarter, surpassing Q1 growth rates from previous years. The table below displays Q1 growth over the past five years, including the first quarter of 2025. These increases may be attributed to precautionary behavior in response to migratory and economic uncertainty, or to growing cross-border financial activity among senders.

Under a possible economic slowdown in the United States approaching a recession, projected remittance growth for the region ranges between a high of 5 percent and a low of 3 percent. For example, remittance growth to Central America may fall below 4 percent in the coming months, while growth to Mexico is expected to remain around 2 percent. For Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, growth is projected to hold at 3 percent and 4 percent, respectively.

An analysis of principal and transaction data from January 2006 to December 2024 in eight Latin American and Caribbean countries, alongside U.S. inflation, wage, and unemployment figures, shows little variation in the average amount sent by migrants of any nationality. However, the number of transactions correlates negatively with unemployment; a 1 percentage point increase in U.S. unemployment (e.g., from 4 to 5 percent, with a projected increase to 4.5 percent as of March) could decrease remittances by approximately 2.4 percent. This figure should be considered only a reference point, as additional economic factors—such as a potential recession—could shift the outlook. Current GDP growth projections range from 0.7 to 1.5 percent (compared to at least 1.5 percent in 2024). Data spanning twenty-five years on deportations across eight nationalities does not indicate a significant impact on remittance volume, although the number of transactions may decline by up to half a million