B2B FX Platforms Compared: What CFOs Actually Need to Know Before Switching

Most comparisons of FX platforms are written by the platforms themselves. Airwallex publishes why Airwallex beats Wise. OFX publishes why OFX beats Airwallex. Wise publishes why everyone else charges too much. You end up reading marketing, not analysis.

This guide takes a different approach. We work with CFOs and treasury teams at import/export companies every day. We know what actually matters when you're moving £1M or more across borders annually — and it's rarely the headline feature that gets the most advertising spend.

What the comparison sites get wrong

Every "best FX platform" article leads with consumer features: app design, card cashback, how quickly you can sign up. None of that matters when your accounts payable team is processing six-figure supplier payments across four currencies on a Thursday afternoon.

Here's what does matter, and where each platform sits.

The FX markup: what you're actually paying

Banks charge 2-4% above the mid-market rate on currency conversions. That's the number everyone in fintech loves to quote because it makes every alternative look good. But the differences between platforms are where treasury teams lose or save real money.

Wise Business uses the mid-market rate with a transparent percentage fee, typically 0.33-0.60% depending on the currency pair and payment method. What you see is genuinely what you pay. The trade-off: no forward contracts, no hedging instruments, no rate locks beyond a few hours. For predictable, repetitive payments in major currencies, the cost is clear and competitive. For anything requiring risk management — seasonal purchasing, commodity-linked procurement, or volatile corridors like GBP/TRY or GBP/NGN — Wise leaves you exposed.

Airwallex quotes interbank rates with a margin of 0.2-0.6%, sometimes higher depending on the currency pair. Their strength is the infrastructure: local accounts in 17+ currencies, API-driven automation, and deep integration with ecommerce platforms. Built for tech-enabled businesses running automated payment flows. The gap: if you need a human to pick up the phone and discuss a £400K GBP/INR conversion ahead of a tariff deadline, the platform-first approach may feel impersonal. Treasury teams at traditional import/export companies often find Airwallex's self-service model insufficient for complex, high-value transactions.

OFX includes their margin within the exchange rate — no separate transaction fee, but the rate you receive is marked up from mid-market. Typical markup runs 0.4-1.5% depending on volume and currency. Their differentiator is 24/7 phone access to FX specialists and forward contracts for risk management. For businesses processing regular payments over £50K, the dedicated dealer relationship adds genuine value. Less suited to businesses wanting API integration or automated flows.

Currencies Direct operates on a similar dealer model to OFX, with competitive margins for high-volume clients (typically 0.3-1.0% above mid-market). Strong on the UK-to-Europe and UK-to-South Africa corridors where they've built deep liquidity. Forward contracts and limit orders are standard. The trade-off: limited presence in Asian and Middle Eastern corridors, and the technology platform hasn't kept pace with newer entrants. If your payment volume is concentrated in EUR, ZAR, or USD, Currencies Direct is often cheaper than the tech-first platforms. If you need CNY, AED, or emerging market currencies, coverage thins out.

Loop Financial is a Canadian fintech focused on multi-currency business accounts. Corporate cards with no FX fees on CAD/USD/GBP/EUR spend, credit facilities up to $1M, and QuickBooks/Xero integration. Designed specifically for Canadian SMEs managing cross-border payments. Strong for businesses operating primarily in North American and European currencies. Limited corridor coverage beyond major pairs, and no forward contracts or hedging instruments.

What none of these platforms tell you

The FX markup is only part of the cost. For treasury teams at import/export companies, the variables that actually determine annual FX spend are:

Settlement speed. A platform quoting 0.3% markup but settling in T+3 costs you more than one quoting 0.5% with same-day settlement — because your working capital is trapped for 72 hours. At 8% cost of capital on £500K monthly volume, that's £65,000 permanently locked in settlement float.

Corridor depth. GBP/USD and EUR/USD are competitive everywhere. The real test is what happens when you need to convert GBP to INR, AED to PKR, or CAD to NGN. Thin corridors mean wider spreads, and a platform advertising 0.2% margin on major pairs may charge 1.5% on the corridor you actually use.

Compliance throughput. When a supplier payment triggers a compliance review, how long does it take to clear? A 4-hour hold on a time-sensitive payment can cost more in demurrage charges or missed supplier discounts than the FX markup saves. Platforms regulated across multiple jurisdictions tend to have smoother compliance processes because they've built the infrastructure to handle complex payment flows.

Rate transparency at execution. Some platforms show competitive rates on their website or app, but the rate you receive at the moment of execution differs — particularly on larger transactions or less liquid pairs. The question isn't "what rate do you show?" but "what rate will I get when I execute a £200K GBP/CNY trade at 3pm on a Tuesday?"

The question most CFOs should be asking

It's not "which platform has the lowest FX markup." It's: "What is my total cost per payment, including spread, settlement timing, compliance delays, and working capital impact?"

A platform charging 0.5% with T+0 settlement, deep corridor coverage, and a 2-hour compliance SLA may cost you less per year than one charging 0.2% with T+3 settlement, thin emerging market liquidity, and 48-hour compliance holds.

The arithmetic only works when you measure the full cycle, not just the headline rate.

How to run an actual comparison

If you're evaluating platforms — including ours — here's the process we'd recommend:

Step one: Pull your last 12 months of FX transactions. Calculate actual FX cost per payment (rate received vs mid-market rate at execution time, plus any fees). If your bank doesn't provide mid-market benchmarks, most treasury platforms will.

Step two: Map your corridor exposure. List every currency pair you've converted in the past year, the volume on each, and the frequency. This tells you which corridors matter and where a platform's corridor depth will actually impact your costs.

Step three: Calculate your T+2 settlement costs. Take your average monthly FX volume, multiply by your settlement delay in days, and apply your cost of capital. This is the invisible cost most comparisons ignore.

Step four: Request live execution rates from each platform you're considering. Not indicative rates, not website rates — actual executable rates on your specific corridors at your typical transaction sizes. The difference between indicative and executable rates can be 0.3-0.8% on less liquid pairs.

Step five: Ask about compliance timelines. What's the average time from payment instruction to actual settlement? What triggers a compliance hold? How long do holds typically last? This is where the experience of moving real money across real borders matters more than feature lists.

Where Unicorn Currencies sits in this landscape

We should be transparent about our own positioning since we're publishing this comparison.

Unicorn Currencies is built for import/export businesses processing £1M or more in annual FX volume. We are not a self-service app. We are not designed for freelancers sending occasional payments. We sit in a specific niche: CFOs and treasury teams who need specialist FX support for cross-border trade payments, with regulatory coverage across Canada (FINTRAC MSB, Bank of Canada RPAA registered), the UK, and the UAE.

Our average client markup is 0.74%, which is higher than the headline rates advertised by larger platforms on major pairs. The difference is what that rate includes: dedicated corridor expertise in GBP/INR, GBP/AED, GBP/CNY and China payments, and other trade corridors; same-day settlement where possible; and a compliance infrastructure designed for complex B2B payments, not consumer remittance.

If your FX volume is under £500K annually, Wise or Airwallex will almost certainly be more cost-effective. If your volume is £1M+ and concentrated in trade corridors beyond the major pairs, the maths often works differently.

We'd rather you do the comparison properly and choose the platform that genuinely costs less over 12 months — including the hidden costs — than switch to us based on a sales pitch and discover the fit isn't right.

Unicorn Currencies Limited is a FINTRAC registered Money Services Business (MSB C100000159) and Bank of Canada RPAA registered payment service provider. All comparisons based on publicly available information as of February 2026.