Sample comparison report

Sample reportA standalone, public version of the comparison output Railflows delivers to buyers. Figures are illustrative.
RF-SAMPLE
Multi-corridor sourcing
RELEASED

USD → MXN · USD → BRL · GBP → INR · EUR → NGN

Use case
Marketplace cross-border payouts
Volume
€5–25M / mo
Settlement
T+0 / T+1 preferred
Buyer identity
Anonymised by buyer
84
Provider A
BCB-licensed LatAm payment institution
Subject to provider due diligence
Coverage fit 78Pricing (indicative) 88Settlement speed 90
Railflows note

Strongest LatAm corridor depth among respondents. Native PIX + SPEI removes correspondent hop on the two highest-volume legs. Onboarding fastest in the cohort.

Coverage fit78
2 of 4 corridors directly, 4 of 4 via correspondent
Pricing (indicative)88
FX spread88
28 bps
Transaction fees86
$0.18 / payout
Settlement speed90
T+0 on BRL, MXN
Prefunding70
Partial prefund required
Credit availability60
Conditional credit line
Risk fit84
Marketplace flows accepted
Onboarding feasibility82
~6 weeks
API maturity88
REST + webhooks + sandbox
Support / SLA80
Response engagement92
Same-day response, deep response detail
78
Provider B
Multi-rail orchestrator (Swiss FI + OTC partner)
Subject to provider due diligence
Coverage fit 92Pricing (indicative) 74Risk fit 84
Railflows note

Strongest overall coverage. Costlier on transaction fees and FX spread but the only respondent that covers the NGN leg cleanly. Best fit for buyers who value redundancy over best-in-class corridor pricing.

Coverage fit92
4 of 4 corridors covered
Pricing (indicative)74
FX spread74
34 bps
Transaction fees64
$0.40 / payout
Settlement speed76
T+1 majors, T+2 NGN
Prefunding78
Netting available
Credit availability82
Standing credit line
Risk fit84
Reviewed corporate flows
Onboarding feasibility64
~10 weeks
API maturity72
REST, sandbox limited
Support / SLA86
Dedicated relationship manager
Response engagement80
75
Provider C
Pan-emerging market payout specialist
Subject to provider due diligence
Coverage fit 80Pricing (indicative) 80Settlement speed 82
Railflows note

Best fit if NGN + INR are commercial priorities. BRL gap is the main constraint. Prefunding requirement may not work for cash-flow-sensitive buyers.

Coverage fit80
3 of 4 corridors directly
Pricing (indicative)80
FX spread80
32 bps
Transaction fees82
$0.22 / payout
Settlement speed82
T+0 on INR, NGN
Prefunding60
Full prefund required
Credit availability40
No credit line
Risk fit76
Onboarding feasibility70
~8 weeks
API maturity84
REST + webhooks + GraphQL
Support / SLA72
Response engagement82
Detailed quote within 2 days
71
Provider D
VASP-licensed stablecoin / Lightning specialist
Subject to provider due diligence
Coverage fit 88Pricing (indicative) 92Settlement speed 96
Railflows note

Lowest pricing and fastest settlement, but the model places stablecoin custody and off-ramp friction on the recipient side. Strong fit for crypto-native marketplaces; weaker for traditional sellers without wallet infrastructure.

Coverage fit88
4 of 4 corridors via USDT/Lightning
Pricing (indicative)92
FX spread94
22 bps
Transaction fees96
$0.06 / payout
Settlement speed96
<5 min, 24/7
Prefunding56
USDT prefund required
Credit availability36
Not available
Risk fit46
Recipient must accept stablecoin or accept off-ramp friction
Onboarding feasibility78
~5 weeks
API maturity78
Support / SLA64
Response engagement78
63
Provider E
Generalist PSP / acquirer
Subject to provider due diligence
Coverage fit 58Risk fit 72Onboarding feasibility 86
Railflows note

Fastest onboarding because the buyer already operates with them on card acquiring. Wider spreads and missing BRL/NGN make this a fallback rather than a primary route.

Coverage fit58
2 of 4 corridors directly
Pricing (indicative)50
FX spread50
44 bps
Transaction fees46
$0.55 / payout
Settlement speed60
T+2
Prefunding74
Netting available
Credit availability70
Risk fit72
Onboarding feasibility86
~3 weeks (existing relationship)
API maturity80
Support / SLA80
Response engagement62
Partial response, missing NGN quote

Scores are Railflows' directional assessment based on available RFQ and provider response information. Final pricing, onboarding approval and commercial terms are subject to provider due diligence and agreement. This is a sample report — all figures are illustrative.

What you'd see on your own RFQ

This is what the comparison output looks like.

Your version is shaped by your corridors, volume band and settlement requirements — and only the providers who actually responded to your RFQ. Provider identities stay private until you approve a reveal.