How promotional pairs were matched
For each provider we required a promotional and standard observation on the same date, route, amount, pay-in and pay-out. Recipient uplift was calculated as promo divided by standard minus one.
Cashback that was not included in the recipient amount was not assigned an invented value.
Why the median is modest
Promotions vary: some improve the rate slightly, some waive a fee and others are constrained by an amount cap. The median summarises represented pairs without claiming a universal offer.
A particular eligible first transfer can differ materially. The provider confirmation screen and offer terms control.
What repeat senders should do
Use the promotional comparison for the immediate eligible transfer and the standard comparison for long-term provider choice. Combining the two hides the post-offer price.
Preserve the offer date, sending market, cap, code and eligibility in any published claim.
How this result was produced
Eligible rows used high or medium confidence and an API or HTML source. We retained one provider row per exact key using confidence, source quality and recipient amount, then required at least two providers.
Pairs were within-provider and identical on route, date, amount, pay-in and pay-out. Only mode differed.
These are quote observations, not completed transfers. Results apply only to the named routes, dates, amounts and methods; they do not predict a future quote or measure delivery reliability.
