International ACH transfers vs. crypto for US to Canada payments

International ACH transfers are a common way to move money for cross-border payments (US to Canada), especially for payroll, vendor payouts, and recurring bank-to-bank settlement. But ACH is a US network, and cross-border use typically adds extra steps, such as FX conversion, additional banking data, and longer processing windows.

This guide explains what’s actually happening when you send ACH to Canada, what information you’ll need, what alternatives exist (wire, SWIFT, money transfer services), and where stablecoins can reduce time-to-settlement in a modern cross-border stack.

Comparison of US ACH and Canadian EFT: what rails you’re really using

ACH (US) is a batch-based electronic funds transfer system used for direct deposit, bill pay, and business-to-business payments. The rules and standards are governed by Nacha. ACH is typically processed in batches, which is one reason settlement is not real time.

EFT (Canada) refers to Canada’s electronic funds transfer mechanisms operated through Payments Canada’s EFT system. Like ACH, EFT is widely used for payroll, direct deposits, vendor payments, and pre-authorized debits (PADs).

Key point for US to Canada flows: When a provider says it can send ACH to Canada, you’re usually using an International ACH Transfer product that starts on ACH in the US and then connects into Canadian clearing/settlement on the receiving side. That cross-border handoff is where timing, fees, and data requirements change.

Can you send ACH payments from the US to Canada?

Yes. The common label is International ACH Transfer.

What to expect operationally:

• Processing time: Often a few business days for cross-border delivery, even when domestic ACH can be 1-2 business days (and in some cases same-day).
• Fees: International ACH transfers typically incur fees, which vary by bank or provider.
• FX conversion: If the recipient needs CAD, the transfer typically includes USD-to-CAD conversion, and the applied exchange rate affects the final received amount.
• Availability and limits: Not all banks offer international ACH products, and some set per-transfer or daily limits.

For enterprise payments teams, the practical issue is predictability: batch processing + cross-border routing + FX can make it harder to guarantee a specific delivery time.

Required information for international bank transfers (US to Canada)

Whether you’re using a bank or a specialized transfer provider, you should expect to collect enough data to route funds into the Canadian banking system and manage compliance checks.

Common required fields include:

• Recipient full name
• Recipient Canadian bank account number
• 3-digit bank institution number (Canada)
• 5-digit bank transit number (Canada)
• Bank branch address
• SWIFT/BIC code (often required when an intermediary bank is involved, or when the provider routes over SWIFT)

Operational note: missing or mismatched bank identifiers is a frequent cause of exceptions, returns, and manual repair—especially in cross-border flows where multiple institutions may touch the payment.

Alternatives to ACH for international transfers (Wire, SWIFT) between the US and Canada

International ACH is not the only option. The right rail depends on urgency, amount size, reconciliation needs, and fee tolerance.

Wire transfers

• Pros: Generally faster than ACH for international use; often preferred for high-value or time-sensitive transfers.
• Cons: Typically higher fees than ACH; may still involve intermediary banks and additional charges.

SWIFT transfers

• What it is: A global bank messaging network used to coordinate international transfers between financial institutions.
• What it means in practice: SWIFT supports broad reach, but end-to-end speed and total cost depend on the correspondent banking path, cutoffs, and intermediaries.

International money transfer services

Providers such as Western Union, MoneyGram, PayPal, Wise, or OFX can offer:

• Different pricing models (fees and FX spread vary)
• Different delivery methods (bank deposit, card, cash pickup in some cases)
• Potentially simpler onboarding for certain corridors

For enterprise use, the tradeoff is often between integration complexity, unit economics, and control over reconciliation and settlement timing.

Where stablecoins fit: a practical crypto option for US to Canada settlement

Stablecoins don’t replace ACH or EFT inside domestic banking systems, but they can reduce friction in the cross-border portion of the flow.

A typical enterprise pattern looks like this:

1. USD on-ramp (from a US bank account or treasury account)
2. Onchain transfer of a USD-denominated stablecoin (near-real-time settlement relative to batch bank rails)
3. CAD off-ramp (to a Canadian bank account), if the recipient needs fiat in Canada

What this can change for cross-border payments (US to Canada):

• Settlement speed: Onchain transfer can settle faster than batch-based cross-border bank routing.
• Operational visibility: Onchain transactions are traceable, which can simplify payment status tracking (separate from compliance and accounting requirements).
• Cost profile: Fees can be lower than wires in some cases, but total cost depends on on/off-ramp fees and FX.

What it does not remove:

• FX and liquidity management (USD to CAD still matters)
• Compliance requirements (KYC/AML, sanctions screening, travel rule obligations where applicable)
• Recipient preference (some recipients want CAD in a bank account, not digital dollars)

Polygon context: Polygon is widely used for stablecoin activity, which makes it a relevant execution environment when institutions evaluate onchain settlement as part of a cross-border stack. The decision is typically less about crypto vs. banks and more about which legs of the payment can be modernized without breaking compliance, reconciliation, or user experience.

The Open Money Stack is being built out as a single API that will enable end-to-end global, regulated payments, from offchain systems to onchain movement and back again. 

US ACH transfers vs. Canada EFT payments: timing and reversibility basics

For teams comparing rails, a few baseline differences matter:

• ACH (US):
• Common uses: payroll, direct deposit, bill pay, vendor payments
• Typical processing: 1-3 business days
• Reversibility: can often be reversed in cases of error or fraud, subject to rules and timelines
• EFT (Canada):
• Common uses: payroll, direct deposit, vendor payments, PADs
• Typical settlement: 1-2 business days
• Reversibility: can be reversed under specific processing rules

In cross-border scenarios, your end-to-end timing is usually constrained by the slowest leg (often the cross-border routing and banking cutoffs), not the domestic system alone.

Conclusion

International ACH transfers can work for cross-border payments (US to Canada), but they typically introduce extra latency, fees, and operational complexity versus domestic bank transfers, especially once FX, cutoffs, and exceptions are included.

If your priority is faster settlement and better payment visibility, stablecoins can modernize the cross-border leg of the flow while keeping fiat endpoints (USD in, CAD out). For most enterprises, the practical next step is to map your corridor requirements and decide which legs belong on bank rails and which can move onchain.