By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 05/02/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
International transfers rarely have a single “all-in” fee. With Tide, there can be provider charges (for example, a transfer fee and FX markup) and separate fees charged by intermediary banks and/or the recipient’s bank, which can reduce what ultimately arrives.
This article is educational and not financial advice.
The two fee buckets: what you can control vs what you can’t see
1) Provider fees (Tide): what Tide charges and shows
Provider fees are charges set by Tide (or the service Tide uses) and are typically visible at the point you confirm a transfer, or in transaction details afterwards.
Tide publishes examples of “Transfers to/from foreign bank accounts” pricing on its plans and pricing page. Depending on plan, this can include a per-transfer fee and an FX fee (markup) when currency conversion applies.
Tide also explains that international-payment fees can be collected during processing and shown in transaction details, and it sets out how its FX markup can apply for EUR SEPA in its EUR SEPA fee explainer.
2) Intermediary and recipient bank fees: what other banks may deduct or charge
Separately from provider fees, a transfer can pass through correspondent/intermediary banks (especially on SWIFT routes), and the recipient bank may also charge for receiving/crediting.
A key practical point is that these third-party charges may be deducted from the amount sent (so the beneficiary receives less), or charged separately to the recipient (depending on bank practice and charging arrangements).
Lloyds describes how payments can be routed via intermediary/correspondent banks and that their charges may be deducted before the receiving bank gets the payment, in its international services rates and charges.
The FCA explicitly highlights the consumer harm risk where senders are not informed that intermediary/recipient bank fees may reduce the amount received, in its publication on international payment pricing transparency.
How Tide fees typically show up (and what they are not)
Tide transfer fee vs FX markup
Think of Tide’s side as two separate mechanics:
Transfer fee (a fixed pence amount per transfer, depending on plan/allowance)
FX markup/FX fee (a percentage when currency conversion occurs)
Tide’s public plan page summarises the “transfer fee + FX fee” framing for foreign bank transfers on its pricing page. Where EUR SEPA is involved, Tide describes that an FX markup can apply and that the fee visibility sits in payment confirmation/transaction details on its EUR SEPA fee explainer.
What this is not: Tide’s provider fees are not the same thing as correspondent bank “lifting fees” or a recipient bank’s receiving charges. Those are set by other institutions in the chain.
SWIFT-specific reality check for Tide: inbound vs outbound
For SWIFT, Tide’s own help content sets expectations for inbound SWIFT timing and fees, and also notes that outbound SWIFT payments are not available (at least per the referenced help page) in its inbound/outbound SWIFT article.
That distinction matters because many “intermediary bank fee” surprises are discussed in the context of SWIFT wires. With Tide, the relevant scenario is often receiving SWIFT (not sending it), plus sending/receiving via other supported rails (for a rail overview, see Tide international transfers: SWIFT vs SEPA vs ACH explained).
What Tide can and can’t do with USD (send vs receive)
Tide’s published position is clear on two points that are easy to mix up:
Sending USD to the US via ACH: Supported (subject to availability and eligibility). See Tide’s feature explanation on sending USD with your Tide account.
Receiving USD via ACH: Not currently supported. Tide explicitly states you can’t receive USD via ACH, and separately states Tide business accounts can only be paid in GBP and EUR (other inbound currencies are rejected). See what currencies can I be paid in.
This is an important distinction: supporting an outbound USD payment route is not the same as holding a USD balance or accepting inbound USD.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Tide transfer fee applies | The amount you send includes a Tide fee (or uses up an allowance); recipient receives the sent amount minus any third-party fees | Reconciliation needs two checks: Tide fee line item + recipient confirmation |
| Tide FX markup applies | The FX conversion rate includes a markup; the foreign-currency amount is calculated from the marked-up rate | “No transfer fee” does not mean “no cost” if FX applies |
| Intermediary bank deducts charges en route | The beneficiary receives less than expected (“short” receipt) | Supplier invoices may remain partly unpaid unless the sender tops up separately |
| Recipient bank charges on receipt | The recipient may see a separate receiving fee, or a lower net credit | Recipient may attribute the shortfall to the sender even if the sender’s provider fee was disclosed |
| Charging arrangement is “shared” in the chain | Sender pays their bank/provider fees; recipient/chain may deduct additional fees | The total cost splits across parties and may be hard to predict in advance |
| Transfer direction changes (incoming vs outgoing) | Fee logic and how it appears can differ depending on whether you’re sending or receiving | Direction matters for disputes and refund expectations (see Tide incoming vs outgoing transfer charges: where fees differ) |
Who decides “who pays the fees”: OUR / SHA / BEN and why it matters
Banks often describe SWIFT charging arrangements using:
OUR: sender pays (aim is to deliver the full instructed amount to the beneficiary)
SHA: charges are shared (recipient side can bear intermediary/receiving charges)
BEN: beneficiary pays (fees deducted from the amount sent)
Lloyds summarises these options and notes that charging options can be restricted by destination (for example, within certain areas), while also explaining that correspondent bank charges may be deducted and the receiving bank may not have visibility of routing and charges, in its international services rates and charges.
Bank of Scotland’s tariff guide also explains that under shared charging the recipient may pay their bank’s charges plus agent bank charges, and it describes an approach where a “correspondent bank fee” is used in an “OUR” framing for certain payments, in its International Services Tariff.
At a network level, SWIFT gpi materials describe the “details of charges” instruction being carried through the chain end-to-end in SWIFT gpi roles and responsibilities guidance. In plain terms: the fee-bearing arrangement can be part of the instruction set, but it still doesn’t guarantee that every downstream cost is fully predictable at initiation.
Where fees appear in practice: a “find it fast” guide
At the point of payment confirmation (provider layer): provider transfer fee and/or FX markup can be shown before or at submission (provider-dependent). Tide describes fee collection/visibility within its fee explainers, such as the EUR SEPA fee explainer.
In your app timeline / transaction details (provider layer): fees Tide collects during processing can show as a distinct line item or within details (again per provider’s UI).
At the beneficiary end (bank layer): a receiving bank may show a receiving fee separately or credit a net amount.
In “short payments”: if intermediary charges are deducted mid-route, the beneficiary receives less than the instructed amount. The FCA highlights this “recipient receives less” risk where intermediary/recipient fees apply in its pricing transparency publication.
For SWIFT payments, getting the details right reduces operational back-and-forth (and can reduce avoidable investigation costs). For Tide-specific recipient detail fields, see Tide SWIFT payments: details needed (IBAN/BIC) and why.
Scenario Table
| Scenario-level (before the transfer) | Process-level (what happens in the rails) | Outcome-level (what you see) |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer requires correspondent banking | Payment routes via one or more intermediary/correspondent banks | Beneficiary receives net of deductions or sees separate bank charges |
| Currency conversion is required | FX is applied by the provider and/or a bank in the chain | Effective rate differs from the “interbank” reference; cost may appear as markup |
| Charging arrangement is shared | Recipient side bears receiving/intermediary fees | Sender sees their own fee; recipient sees less received or extra charges |
| Transfer is constrained to shared charging (corridor rule) | Fee option selection may be restricted | Limited ability to force “full amount received” outcomes |
| Receiving bank applies a receiving tariff | Beneficiary bank charges for crediting/handling | Recipient disputes “missing money” despite correct sender instruction |
| Payment needs investigation/tracing | Banks/providers exchange supporting messages and evidence | Additional charges can arise and timelines lengthen |
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide’s plan structure (including allowances and pricing categories) affects how provider-side international transfer fees may apply in practice. For a broader, neutral overview of Tide’s account features and plan positioning, see our Tide business account review.
Frequently Asked Questions
A Tide fee is a charge set by Tide (or the underlying service Tide uses) rather than by another bank in the route. Typically this is a per-transfer fee (or use of an allowance) and/or an FX fee where currency conversion is involved.
Tide publishes plan-level pricing categories and examples for transfers to/from foreign bank accounts on its plans and pricing page. Tide also describes fee collection and how fees can appear in transaction details in its EUR SEPA fee explainer.
There are two common mechanisms. First, intermediary/correspondent banks can deduct handling charges in transit (often described as “lifting fees”), reducing the amount that arrives.
Second, the recipient bank can charge for receiving/crediting the payment, which may appear as a separate fee or a lower net credit.
The FCA highlights the risk of “unexpected shortfalls” where intermediary/recipient fees apply and are not made clear to the sender in its international payment pricing transparency publication.
Lloyds also explains that correspondent banks may deduct charges and that routing/charges can be outside the receiving bank’s visibility in its international services rates and charges.
No. Intermediary bank fees are generally processing/handling charges applied by banks in the route (or by the recipient bank). FX markup is a cost component of converting one currency to another, applied by the provider or a bank, and it affects the exchange rate used for conversion.
In Tide’s case, Tide describes an FX markup approach in the context of EUR SEPA in its EUR SEPA fee explainer. Separately, banks describe that third-party/correspondent charges can be deducted independently of FX, as Lloyds notes in its international services rates and charges.
“SHA” is commonly explained as shared charging (sender pays their bank/provider; recipient side bears receiving/intermediary fees), but it does not function like a universal guarantee.
Different corridors, banks, and message routes can produce different practical results, including deductions from the principal amount or separate fees.
Lloyds explains shared charging in the context of international payments and explicitly notes that the receiver pays their own bank charges plus those of banks involved in processing, in its international services rates and charges.
Bank of Scotland’s tariff guide also describes shared charging outcomes (including agent bank charges) in its International Services Tariff.
Not always. “OUR” is typically described as the sender paying charges so the beneficiary receives the full instructed amount, but receiving banks can still apply fees to their own customer relationship (for example, a receiving tariff), and some costs can remain outside the sender’s control.
Bank of Scotland’s tariff guide describes an “OUR” approach that replaces agent bank charges via a correspondent bank fee, while noting that the recipient bank may still charge its customer, in its International Services Tariff.
The FCA also illustrates a “pay all fees” framing as a way some firms present third-party fee risk, while still treating disclosure as critical, in its pricing transparency publication.
Yes. Even when a provider shows a zero transfer fee (for example, due to plan allowances), costs can still arise from FX markup (if conversion is involved) and/or third-party bank fees in the chain.
Tide’s plan summary distinguishes transfer-fee treatment by plan and also shows an FX fee component for foreign transfers on its plans and pricing page. Separately, the FCA highlights that third-party fees can reduce the amount received and need clear disclosure in its international payment pricing transparency publication.
Fee visibility depends on the payment type, but Tide describes that fees can be collected during processing and displayed in the confirmation screen and/or transaction details. For EUR SEPA specifically, Tide describes how fees and FX markup information can be viewed by tapping into the transaction in the app in its EUR SEPA fee explainer.
This is separate from third-party bank fees. If an intermediary or recipient bank deducts charges, those deductions may only be visible at the recipient end, or inferred from a net-short receipt. Lloyds describes the lack of control/visibility over routing and charges in its international services rates and charges.
It is most commonly discussed in SWIFT/correspondent-banking contexts because payments may route through multiple banks, increasing the places where charges can be applied. That said, any cross-border setup can involve multiple parties, and fees can arise at provider, intermediary, and recipient levels.
Tide’s help centre content on SWIFT focuses on inbound SWIFT expectations and fees and indicates outbound SWIFT isn’t available in that context, in its inbound/outbound SWIFT article.
For Tide-specific operational detail on rails and requirements, the on-site guides Tide international transfers: SWIFT vs SEPA vs ACH explained and Tide SEPA payments explained: timings and common errors provide supporting context.
Sometimes a provider fee can be reversed (for example, if a transfer fails under certain conditions), but third-party bank fees deducted by intermediaries/recipients are often outside the provider’s control.
The practical outcome depends on which party charged which fee and whether the underlying payment was completed, rejected, or returned.
For Tide-specific treatment of fee reversals versus retained fees, see Tide refunds of fees explained. Separately, banks can be explicit that correspondent/agent bank fees vary and may be outside visibility/control, as Lloyds notes in its international services rates and charges.
For provider fees, the most useful artefacts are the payment confirmation view (if available), the transaction detail view, and statements showing any fee line items and FX conversion rate information. Tide describes where fee/markup information can appear in-app for EUR SEPA in its EUR SEPA fee explainer.
For third-party fees, evidence commonly sits with the recipient bank (receiving fee) and, for SWIFT routes, the sending/receiving banks’ SWIFT documentation. Tide’s SWIFT help page references “proof of payment” for delayed inbound payments in its inbound/outbound SWIFT article.
For Tide-specific field requirements that reduce avoidable errors, see Tide SWIFT payments: details needed (IBAN/BIC) and why.
International transfer “fees” are better understood as a stack rather than a single number:
- The provider’s disclosed pricing and FX mechanics
- A payment-chain layer where other banks can apply their own tariffs and deductions.
Confusion tends to arise when a sender assumes the first layer fully determines the second.
Regulators and banks increasingly frame this as a transparency issue: where the provider cannot know downstream fees, the only robust outcome is clear disclosure that third-party fees may still apply and may reduce what is received.
The most operationally useful mindset is that a clean provider fee screen is evidence of provider pricing clarity, not necessarily an end-to-end guarantee of bank-chain pricing outcomes.
Related Content
