Remittance Apps: What CR Testing Found About Cost, Transparency, and Privacy

CR’s analysis specifically looked at how each app handled transfers to four countries that receive large amounts of remittances from the U.S.: India, Mexico, Nigeria, and the Philippines. The researchers reviewed the apps’ privacy policies, terms of service, and user interfaces, and also conducted user testing. User testing included transaction analysis, meaning users sent money in order to collect receipts, confirm delivery times, and identify discrepancies, and compared pretransaction quotes to total actual costs, fees, and exchange rates. These evaluations were completed in September 2025.

Overall, Wise and Remitly received the highest marks. MoneyGram ranked lowest overall, having received relatively weak privacy and safety scores. (MoneyGram did not respond to a request for comment about the findings.)

The full rating table is below, followed by a closer look at some of the study’s most significant findings. 

One of the core findings of CR’s evaluation is that it can be difficult for users to determine the true cost of sending money. 

Some apps, for example, vary the exchange rate depending on how the money is delivered, whether through a bank deposit, cash pickup at a physical location, or a mobile wallet transfer, but do not make the various rate tiers clear or easy to discover. Some companies also advertise low or no fees but hide additional costs by marking up exchange rates.

This is especially problematic because remittances are typically small and frequent—so even modest fees or exchange rate markups can add up and significantly reduce the amount received over time. The majority of remittance app users sent less than $200 per transfer, according to CR’s nationally representative survey. Most users send money several times a year, and nearly half—46 percent—do so at least once a month. Globally, the average cost of sending remittances is 6.5 percent of the money being sent, according to the World Bank. And research commissioned by Wise found that, in 2023, exchange rate markups on international financial transactions, including remittances, cost Americans $5.8 billion. 

The portion of remittances that gets through to recipients was further eroded by the federal budget reconciliation law popularly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was passed in July 2025 and began imposing a 1 percent tax on remittances sent from the U.S. to foreign countries when they are paid with cash, cashier’s checks, or money orders. The tax took effect on Jan. 1, 2026, after the data was collected for CR’s study. 

CR’s evaluation demonstrated the complexity of the fees and other costs involved in sending funds. It compared, for example, how Wise and Western Union handled a transfer of $200 from the U.S. to Mexico. Wise charged a $2.47 fee for a bank-to-bank transfer, and the recipient received the equivalent of about $197 in Mexican pesos. Western Union, by contrast, charged a lower fee of $1.99 but used a less favorable exchange rate, leaving the recipient with roughly $195. Despite the lower up-front fee, in other words, Western Union’s transfer ultimately delivered less money.

“Exchange rates can vary based on market conditions, corridor, payment method and payout option, which can affect the final amount delivered—even when upfront fees are lower,” Western Union told CR in an emailed statement when asked about this price comparison. The company added that it would continue investing in its digital experience to make pricing easier to understand.

“When apps do not clearly disclose how exchange rates differ by delivery option, or how much of the total cost is embedded in the rate itself, consumers may not realize they are paying more than expected,” says CR policy advocate Chuck Bell. “Apps should disclose the full cost of the transfer, including all mandatory fees, up front, and clearly show the net amount the recipient will receive after the transfer is completed.”

Another core finding of CR’s evaluation is that all five apps collect and share large amounts of customer data for general business and marketing purposes, while offering users limited control over how that information can be used.

Privacy is particularly important in this context because the apps handle a large range of sensitive personal and financial information. 

Abigail Kunkler, a law fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says the data people provide to these services can be extensive: Beyond basic details like name, address, and phone number, it can include copies of IDs, geolocation data, biometrics, and records showing where money is sent and to whom. Taken together, she says, this data can be used to “construct a pretty comprehensive view of someone’s life.”

CR evaluated each app on privacy based on a few key factors. This included whether the apps collect, use, and share data only as needed to provide their services. It also looked at whether they make money by selling user data, and whether users can access their data, see who it’s shared with, and delete it.

Wise, Xoom, and Remitly scored the highest on privacy, while MoneyGram ranked the lowest. (As noted, MoneyGram did not respond to CR’s request for comment.)

CR also found that none of companies’ privacy policies include strong enough safeguards limiting how user information may be shared in response to broad government or law enforcement requests.

That said, Wise, Western Union, and Remitly scored the best for having meaningful privacy policies (a subcriterion in the broader privacy evaluation process). Each says it may share user data to comply with laws or government requests but specifies that this would require some proof of legal authority, such as a court order, warrant, or subpoena.

MoneyGram again received the lowest score. Its policy uses relatively vague language, saying it may share user information if it has to comply with “any court order, law or legal process,” including any government or regulatory requests.

“That’s extremely concerning. We would want people to have things like disclosures and understanding of what’s being collected and what’s being shared,” says Sueiro of UnidosUS, adding that there should be “strict guardrails” around sharing user information with authorities.

Indeed, CR advocates are urging the companies to strengthen their privacy policies and to commit to sharing user data with law enforcement or the government only when legally required, such as in response to a valid subpoena tied to a criminal investigation, a court order, or a search warrant showing probable cause. The companies should also notify users before any disclosures, unless prohibited by law.

These concerns are not unfounded. In 2022, Sen. Ron Wyden revealed that Homeland Security Investigations, the criminal investigative arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had collected records in bulk from international money transfer companies for transactions exceeding $500. The records were searchable through a database run by the Transaction Record Analysis Center, a nonprofit created in 2014 as part of a settlement between the Arizona attorney general’s office and Western Union.

Documents later obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union showed the scale of the data collection. By 2021, TRAC held about 145 million transaction records from 28 companies, with more than 600 law enforcement agencies granted access. The database has continued to grow and now contains over 300 million records. 

Although TRAC was created to support investigations into money laundering and other financial crimes, reporting in recent years suggests that remittance records have been used in immigration enforcement actions. In response, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in 2025 that ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations agents would no longer have access to the database and that new safeguards were being implemented to prevent its use for immigration enforcement. However, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations agents were not included in this restriction.

CR asked the remittance app companies about TRAC.

“Western Union is committed to protecting the personal data of our customers, while complying with legal obligations. As a matter of policy, however, we do not comment on specific law enforcement investigations or pending legal matters,” Western Union told CR. Remitly said it has not voluntarily provided bulk customer transaction data to TRAC, Homeland Security Investigations, or similar programs, and that it does not share customer data with government entities except as required by law. The other companies either did not respond or declined to address the issue.

Kunkler warns that databases like TRAC can expand beyond their original purpose through what she calls function creep. “You have a tool that is supposed to be used in a specific way, but over time the acceptable uses of that tool grow, and so you’re capturing more than was intended,” she says.

Because the use of remittance apps is often unavoidable, Kunkler argues that stronger privacy laws are needed, particularly ones that enforce data minimization, the idea that companies should collect, process, and retain only the personal data needed to deliver the service requested by the customer. “Because you can’t sell what you don’t have,” she says. “You can’t have a data breach of information that you don’t have.”

Some (but not all) of the remittance apps reviewed enabled users to opt out of targeted advertising or non-essential data sharing. But even when those controls exist, they can be difficult to find. Here are instructions and video demonstrating how to control those settings. 

MoneyGram users can click on the profile icon on the upper-left corner of the app, then select Settings. From there, they can opt out of receiving special offers and promotions via text or email.

CR’s evaluation found Remitly’s data privacy settings to be the easiest to find. Once logged in, users can click Manage at the bottom of the screen, then scroll to Privacy choices, where they can turn off non-necessary cookies and targeted advertising.

On the Western Union app, users can select the Menu button on the upper-right corner of the screen and then scroll down until they see the Settings button. In the Settings screen select the option to manage cookies and turn off all non-necessary cookies. Users can also turn off targeted advertising by selecting the Menu button and scrolling down to the Profile button. From there, tap “Contact preferences” and deselect “Share my information.”

Wise offers some privacy controls (such as discoverability settings) and certain data-rights requests, but its materials do not describe a broad opt-out from all data sharing.

Because Xoom is a PayPal subsidiary, users manage privacy settings through the PayPal app. Once logged in to the PayPal app, select the user icon at the upper-right corner of the screen, then the Settings button beneath their name. From Settings, click “Data and privacy” and then turn off “Personalized shopping” and “Personalized ads.”

CR also looked at whether these apps and their policy documents are available in multiple languages, and found that most fell short in certain respects at the time of the evaluations. All five apps could be used in Spanish, but only Remitly supported the primary languages across all four corridors reviewed by CR, including Hindi and Filipino. No other app went beyond English and Spanish among the languages CR reviewed.

Given the data privacy issues associated with remittance apps, it’s also important for privacy policies and terms of service documents to be provided within the app in the primary languages that their users speak and read. Remitly also stands out for making its privacy policy and terms of service available in all four primary languages. Western Union and Xoom are the only other apps that offered user agreements in Spanish. MoneyGram provided its privacy policy in Spanish and Filipino, but its terms of service were available only in English. And while Wise’s app can be used in Spanish, its user agreements were available only in English.

Western Union said that it supports dozens of languages across its digital platforms and customer communications, while PayPal said Xoom’s full user experience, including legal documents, is available in more than 15 languages.

Nuñez of the Central American Resource Center says that when consumers are choosing a remittance service or app, the convenience of the recipient sometimes outweighs concerns related to cost and privacy. 

“The company that they use has less to do with the person in the U.S., and more with the person receiving the money,” Nuñez says. For example, he says, if the user’s grandmother is familiar with collecting remittances at a local Western Union branch, that’s the company they’re likely to use. And even if a bank transfer is the cheapest option, it might not be viable if either the sender or receiver lacks a bank account.

All five apps do support multiple ways to send and receive money, and all but Wise offered cash pickup. And they all received relatively strong marks for user experience and customer support.

But many users are apt to continue using a service even if they have concerns about cost and privacy, advocates say—which is why stronger, industry-wide regulations are needed. “For many people who rely on these apps, using them is unavoidable. They have to support their family,” Kunkler says. “People just deserve more.”

Lin, the legal director at the Maryland Governor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, agrees. “I think there’s more that the industry can do to better understand the population and how to serve them and meet their needs,” she says. “I think it’s important for regulators to understand the population as well.”

The stakes are high. Nuñez says it’s not uncommon for immigrants to cut back on their own spending in order to send funds to their loved ones. “That’s a nonnegotiable for them,” he says. “Part of the reason that they came to this country was for the purpose of supporting their family.”

Indeed, Martha Enriquez, a 58-year-old retired farmworker in California, is originally from Mexico but has been living in the U.S. for more than 40 years. She says she sends money whenever she can to help two of her siblings who live in Mexico and are living with diabetes.

“Sometimes I have to skip buying groceries or other things to be able to send them money. But if they are sick, what can I do?” says Enriquez, who expressed frustration with the cost of sending money. “I make sacrifices, and sometimes I’m left without money. But, oh well, they’re family. We have to help each other.”