Is using XRP for cross-border payments actually cheaper?

The full answer

What has actually been measured?

The most specific figure comes from Ripple. In its Q1 2020 XRP Markets Report, Ripple described Azimo as a UK-based digital money transfer service. The report said Azimo launched payments to the Philippines using On-Demand Liquidity (ODL), Ripple’s XRP-based service, and that within a few months ODL saved the company 30% to 50% when it arranged currency transfers between customers in the Philippines and customers in the UK and Europe [1]. The same report said customers were seeing cost savings because ODL removed the need to pre-fund international accounts [1].

A second figure is often quoted beside it. Ripple’s press release of February 27, 2020, which announced the Azimo partnership, said ODL “has the potential to reduce liquidity costs by up to 60% compared to traditional banking solutions” [2]. That is a stated potential with an upper bound, not a result. The same release quotes Azimo’s chief executive, Richard Ambrose, who said ODL had “significantly reduced the cost and delivery time for cross-border transfers” [2].

The third case is SBI Remit in Japan. SBI Remit has used Ripple Payments since 2017. In its September 6, 2023 announcement, SBI Group said SBI Remit has used Ripple Payments since 2017, and that in 2021 it became the first international money transfer provider in Japan to use Ripple Payment’s solution, which uses XRP as a bridge between two fiat currencies, for remittances from Japan to a digital wallet in the Philippines. The same announcement said SBI Remit’s XRP-based remittance service would be enhanced to bank accounts in the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia [3]. Ripple’s Q3 2021 XRP Markets Report said SBI Remit, once a RippleNet user for fiat-only payments, had switched on ODL [4]. The mechanics of that prefunding cost are covered in whether the cross-border prefunding problem is real.

Has anyone without a commercial stake in Ripple measured the savings?

Not that I could find as of September 30, 2026. Ripple published both the Azimo figure and the 60% figure [1][2]. The SBI statement appears in SBI Group’s own September 6, 2023 announcement. That announcement describes Ripple as an investee of SBI Holdings and names SBI Ripple Asia as a joint venture between SBI Holdings and Ripple [3]. No third-party measurement of the savings is cited here; see the open list.

Outside commentary treats the size of the savings as unsettled. On April 1, 2026, 24/7 Wall St. wrote that bank uptake of ODL depends on “whether the cost savings of using XRP as a bridge asset outweigh the compliance burden” of holding a digital asset [5]. In the same April 1, 2026 article, 24/7 Wall St. reported that SWIFT’s new payment framework promises upfront fee certainty, full-value delivery, near-instant settlement where local infrastructure allows, and end-to-end traceability, and that SWIFT says 75% of its transactions already reach the destination bank within 10 minutes. The article adds that over 50 banks have signed up to the framework, with more than 25 committing to go live by June 2026. Those figures are SWIFT’s own statements as relayed by 24/7 Wall St., not measured savings from XRP.

In which corridors does XRP win on cost, and in which does it lose?

The published claims cover three cases: Azimo and SBI Remit, both reported by company sources, and Japanese financial institutions presenting pilot data, reported by a secondary news source. Ripple’s Q1 2020 XRP Markets Report said ODL saved Azimo 30%-50% on currency transfers between customers in the Philippines and those in the UK and Europe [1]. SBI Group said in September 2023 that using XRP as a bridge currency lets SBI Remit diminish the cost of pre-funding for remittances from Japan to the Philippines [3]. 24/7 Wall St. argued in April 2026 that Ripple’s clearest edge lies in corridors such as India-to-Pakistan, UAE-to-Philippines and Japan-to-Thailand. It wrote that in those corridors Ripple’s direct local bank partnerships and pre-existing ODL liquidity give it an edge that Swift’s new framework has not solved yet [5]. That is the publication’s view, not a cost measurement.

Industry pricing data supports the idea that results depend on the route. FXC Intelligence reported on March 5, 2026 that revenue take rates “differ materially by geography, influenced by FX volatility, liquidity, regulatory complexity and operational infrastructure.”" It also reported that take rates fell in every retail cross-border segment between 2022 and 2025 [7]. The role of market depth is covered in why liquidity depth matters for XRP as a bridge. No cited source names a corridor where XRP was measured as more expensive than the alternative.

Who keeps the savings: sender, payment firm or liquidity provider?

In each published case the saving is reported at the firm. Ripple’s report says ODL saved “the company”, meaning Azimo [1]. SBI says XRP as a bridge currency lets SBI Remit diminish the cost of prefunding [3]. Azimo’s chief executive said “our customers are seeing the benefits” [2], but no source gives the share passed on to senders. Ripple’s Q3 2021 XRP Markets Report separately put Ripple’s own XRP sales, net of purchases, at $491.74 million for the third quarter of 2021, and said all of that quarter’s XRP sales were attributed to the growth and adoption of ODL [4]. Whether cheaper settlement turns into value for the token is a separate question, examined in XRP’s value-capture problem.

How does an XRP-based payment compare with Wise and other fintech remittance networks on published cost and speed?

No like-for-like comparison with Wise can be made, because no published Wise figures for the same corridors appear in the cited sources. Azimo, the main case, was itself a digital money transfer service [1]. The bank alternatives are being rebuilt. 24/7 Wall St. reported on April 1, 2026 that Swift’s new payment framework promises upfront fee certainty and full-value delivery with no deductions, and that more than 25 banks committed to go live by June 2026 [5]. The same article reported Swift’s statement that 75% of its transactions already reach the destination bank within 10 minutes [5]. CoinDesk reported that DBS and Citi made a weekend cross-border dollar payment on September 5, 2026 using tokenized deposits on Swift’s Digital Ledger, and that it settled in minutes rather than the usual up to two business days [6].

Ripple’s own routes do not always use XRP either. CoinGabbar reported that Convera’s partnership with Ripple, announced March 31, 2026, uses RLUSD only in the middle of the payment journey [9]. A stablecoin route is compared in how an XRP bridge differs from USDC. The fee for sending XRP on the ledger itself is covered in what it costs to send XRP.

What is the strongest evidence against the cost claim?

Much of Ripple’s network does not use XRP at all. 24/7 Wall St. reported that RippleNet is a network banks can run entirely in fiat, and that only about 40% of RippleNet partners use ODL [5]. It also reported that Swift’s new framework does not require XRP at any point in the payment flow [5]. crypto.news argued on July 8, 2026 that inside Ripple’s own products the settlement asset is mainly RLUSD, not XRP, because an asset that can move ten percent in a day is disqualified from the cash leg [8]. The evidence is also old. The Azimo savings figure dates from 2020, and the SBI prefunding statement, which gives no percentage figure, dates from 2023. The MoneyGram case is covered in what MoneyGram’s use of XRP proved. The share of Ripple’s volume that runs through XRP is examined in how much of Ripple’s payment volume uses XRP.