Partnership for the Americas
Remittance Intelligence Dashboard
Research Report — March 2026

Remittances from the
United States to Latin America

An integrated analysis of how $115+ billion flows from US-based senders to recipients in five key countries — through which vendors, via which channels, at what cost, and into whose hands.

$115.7B
Total flows to 5 countries (2024)
8
Operators control 70-80% of market
62%
Of senders still use cash/in-person
3.89%
Average LAC transaction cost
Section 1

Country-Level Macro Flows

Annual remittance inflows to five key Latin American countries from the United States (2020–2024). Use the slider to explore how flows have changed year by year.

20202021202220232024
2024
Remittance Inflows Over Time (Billions USD)
Remittances as % of GDP (2024)
The COVID Paradox (2020–2021): Despite pandemic disruptions, remittances surged. Mexico saw a 27.1% jump — driven by US fiscal stimulus, labor market tightness, and increased urgency to support families facing economic hardship at home.
Section 2

How Money Flows: Sending & Receiving

The remittance journey is decoupled: a sender might use a digital app funded by their debit card, while the recipient walks to a bank branch to collect cash. The two halves of the transaction can be completely different experiences.

The Remittance Flow: From Sender to Recipient

A simplified view of how money moves across the US–LAC corridor

US Sending Side
~62% In-Person / Cash
Walmart, agents,
check cashers, bodegas
~38% Digital / Account
Apps funded by debit,
bank account, or card
➡
➡
➡
Operators (Top 6)
Remitly ~23%
Western Union ~12%
Viamericas ~10%
Xoom ~5%
MoneyGram ~3%
Ria ~3%
➡
➡
➡
LAC Receiving Side
~65-80% Cash Pickup
Banks, agents, OXXO,
cooperatives
~20-30% Bank Deposit
SPEI/CLABE, Bancolombia,
BAC, Banrural
~5-20% Digital Wallet
Nequi, Daviplata,
Mercado Pago
Key Insight: 99.1% of Mexico's remittances arrive via electronic transmission (Banco de México, 2024) — but this refers to transmission, not disbursement. A large portion of recipients still cash out at bank branches or convenience stores. The "last mile" is still substantially cash.
Receiving Channel Mix by Country (Estimated %) Cross-referenced estimates
Section 3

The Vendor Landscape

Eight money transfer operators control approximately 70–80% of US–LAC flows. The market has been reshaped by Remitly's digital-first surge and Western Union's decline.

Walmart's Role: Walmart is the single largest physical distribution point for remittances in the US (4,600+ stores), but it is NOT an operator itself. Through "Walmart2World," it white-labels Ria, MoneyGram, and Western Union. Senders at the counter choose between these three providers.
Which payout methods does each vendor offer, in each country?
● Available   ○ Limited/Partial   — Not Available   ? Unconfirmed
Market Share Evolution: The Remitly–Western Union Inversion
August 2025: Western Union acquired Intermex for ~$500M, consolidating its Latin America retail network. Post-acquisition, WU+Intermex combined share is ~15%. Meanwhile, Viamericas nearly doubled from 5% to 10% in five years.
Section 4

Receiving Channels: The Last Mile

Click a country below to see how recipients actually access their money. The heterogeneity is stark — from Colombia's digital wallets to Guatemala's cash-dominant landscape.

Section 5

The Cost Story

Transaction costs for sending $200 from the US. LAC costs have fallen from 8.74% (2001) to 3.89% (2024) — but the UN's 3% SDG target remains elusive, and hidden FX markup can add 1–3%.

Cost by Corridor (% of $200 Transfer)
Cost by Channel Type
Hidden Costs: The percentage cost often excludes foreign exchange markup, which can add 1–3% to the effective cost. This is particularly significant for small transfers (<$100) where the flat fee component dominates, and for cash-based transactions where the sender has less visibility into the exchange rate.
Section 6

Methodology & Sources

This research integrates, cross-references, and visualizes existing institutional data sources that have never been presented together in a unified framework.

Our contribution is integration, not generation. Each data point carries a confidence rating based on independent source verification. Where sources conflict, we show the range. Where data doesn't exist, we say so.
✓✓ Verified — 2+ independent sources ✓ Sourced — Single authoritative source △ Estimate — Established but not re-verified ⚠ Gap — No reliable figure found

Primary Sources

Data Gaps & Limitations

1. Vendor-level payout volume by channel: No vendor publishes what percentage of their payouts go through cash vs. bank vs. wallet. We can only show what options they offer, not usage patterns.

2. Sending channel volume split: The ~62/38 cash/digital split is for senders, not dollar volume. The actual volume split is not reliably documented.

3. Country-level 2020–2022 data: For Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Colombia, these figures are from established databases but were not independently re-verified from multiple sources.

4. Informal/unrecorded flows: All figures represent formal, recorded remittances. The World Bank estimates informal flows could add 50%+ to recorded figures in some corridors.

5. Real-time data: Most data has a 6–12 month reporting lag. "2024" figures in many cases are estimates or preliminary.

Mexico: A Case Study in Data Transparency

Banco de México SIE Database (Table CE81) tracks remittances at the provider/operator level — including transaction counts and amounts by transmitting company. Accessible at banxico.org.mx/SieInternet/

PROFECO "Quién es Quién en el Envío de Dinero" tracks 15+ operators monthly, comparing fees, exchange rates, and total pesos received. For a $350 USD transfer, the spread between the best and worst operator was ~$355 pesos (~$20 USD) — a 5% difference. Available at qqed.profeco.gob.mx

No other country in our five-country set offers comparable operator-level transparency.