Coverage is not performance
Bank funding and payout have far more recorded rows than wallet or cash in the full archive. This reflects provider and route coverage, not consumer preference or value.
A raw average across methods would confound currency, route, amount and provider mix, so this report does not publish one.
The valid comparison design
To compare debit with bank funding, hold provider, date, route, amount, mode and payout constant. To compare bank with wallet payout, hold the remaining dimensions constant and consider recipient access costs.
Where those pairs do not exist, the honest result is insufficient matched coverage.
Quoted speed is not observed speed
Delivery-minute fields are provider estimates captured with the quote. Some rows encode immediate delivery as zero, which should not be read as proof of zero-minute completion.
A true performance study would need completed-transfer timestamps and a clear on-time definition.
How this result was produced
Raw volume counts are frozen to the archive snapshot queried through 3 September 2026.
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.
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.
