The strongest cash-management relationships are defined by a bank’s ability to combine trusted advice, flawless execution and technology into tangible value for treasurers.
The analysts
This year’s survey draws on 26,089 respondents across 139 countries and territories, spanning companies of all sizes and assessing 473 distinct cash-management providers. Respondents offered more than 2.02 million numeric datapoints and over 17,000 written comments, giving Euromoney a detailed view not only of which banks lead but why some relationships become strategically important while others remain transactional.
The findings show that advocacy is concentrated around the principal bank, where relationship quality, execution, technology and proactive service reinforce one another. They also reveal how differently those strengths are expressed across markets: global reach matters in some regions, while local decision-making, domestic infrastructure or specialist capabilities determine leadership in others.
The report then looks beyond today’s rankings to the technologies reshaping treasury. Real-time visibility, integrated tools, AI and tokenised money are advancing at very different speeds, but the direction is clear. Technology is becoming inseparable from relationship quality – and the strongest providers will be those that can turn capability into practical value for treasurers.
The economics of advocacy
Cash management is often measured through product capability, transaction volumes or market share. But from the corporate perspective, the more fundamental distinction is between the bank that sits at the centre of treasury and those that sit around it.
The survey shows that this distinction has significant commercial consequences. Advocacy is dramatically higher for principal providers, stronger relationships hold more of the wallet and promoters are considerably more likely to receive additional spend. Understanding what creates that position and what causes banks to remain secondary is therefore the starting point for understanding competition in cash management.
Criticality of primary bank relationships
Across 46,742 corporate-bank relationships, the survey records an overall Net Promoter Score (NPS) of +28.2, with 49.4% of relationships classified as promoters and 21.2% as detractors.
But the aggregate disguises two very different types of banking relationship. Whether a bank is the corporate’s principal cash-management provider has a far greater bearing on advocacy than simply being part of its banking group.
NPS falls by more than 53 points between the principal and second-ranked provider, while the average relationship score drops from 8.81 to 7.41. By the time a bank occupies third position, detractors already outnumber promoters.
What drives advocacy
NPS shows whether a corporate would recommend its cash-management provider, but not why. To identify the underlying drivers, Euromoney created a correlation model between recommendation scores with satisfaction across product, technology and client-service attributes. All 22 attributes correlate strongly with recommendation, at between 0.59 and 0.74. But that creates a common survey problem: if everything appears important, it becomes difficult to know where improvement will make the greatest difference.
A standardised regression across 15 core attributes, based on 16,153 complete relationships, provides a clearer answer. The model explains 62% of the variation in recommendation scores and identifies six attributes with the strongest independent contribution: relationship quality, domestic-payment execution, proactive teams, digital user experience, liquidity management and the performance of the client service manager.
The pattern is important. Advocacy is not driven by technology or service alone, but by the combination of reliable execution, usable digital tools and teams that understand and anticipate client needs. Other attributes still matter, but increasingly behave as hygiene factors – expected as part of a credible proposition and noticed mainly when they fail.
The most commercially significant finding concerns price. Pricing receives the lowest delivered score of any attribute – 7.73 across all relationships and 8.05 among those completing the full attribute set – yet it has almost no independent effect on recommendation. Corporates complain about price frequently, but advocacy is much more closely associated with service and relationship quality.
Promoter–detractor gaps reinforce this. The widest spreads are on team preparedness, advisory services, client service manager performance and API connectivity, while local market presence, security and domestic payments show smaller gaps.
The strongest signal, however, is relational. Understanding of the client’s business correlates at 0.71 with recommendation and trusted-partner status at 0.74. To put it in context, detractors score their bank 5.4 on these two trust measures, while promoters score it 9.3.
Advocacy determines where the wallet moves
Advocacy in cash management is not simply a reputational measure. When corporates were asked how they expect to redistribute spend across individual providers during the next 12 to 18 months, their intentions tracked closely with NPS.
Among promoters, 18.1% expect to increase spend with the provider by at least 10%, compared with 11.6% of passives and just 8.7% of detractors. Detractors are somewhat more likely to reduce spend – 17.7% plan a cut, compared with 11.1% of promoters – but the larger effect is on growth. Promoters are more than twice as likely as detractors to plan a material increase.
This suggests that losing advocacy does not necessarily mean losing the relationship. More often, it means losing the opportunity to grow it. The same pattern appears within banking panels: 18.5% of principal-bank relationships are earmarked for a material increase, falling to 11.1% for second-ranked providers and 7.9% for fifth-ranked banks.
Share of wallet and advocacy move together just as clearly. Among 10,437 respondents whose wallet allocations could be verified, NPS rises from −16.8 where a bank holds 1% to 10% of the wallet to +60.0 where it controls more than three-quarters. This should not be read as simple causation: banks can earn more share by serving clients well, while larger relationships themselves attract more integration and attention. But small-share positions are clearly where advocacy is weakest.
Wallets are also highly concentrated. The median principal provider holds 70% of cash-management spend, compared with 20% for the second bank and 10% for the third. Even among corporates using six or more providers, the lead bank retains a median 45%.
That concentration limits the immediate revenue exposure from dissatisfied relationships. Weighted by wallet share, 56.0% of validated spend sits with promoters, 29.4% with passives and 14.6% with detractors.
What matters for corporates
Corporates rate 10 criteria when selecting a cash-management provider, with overall relationship ranking first.
The satisfaction data adds another layer. Every comparable criterion is delivered below the importance corporates attach to it. The largest gap is on price, where importance is 8.64 but satisfaction only 7.73. Client service follows with a 0.70-point shortfall, then technology at 0.58 and overall relationship at 0.55.
Price therefore generates the greatest visible dissatisfaction, but the earlier advocacy analysis suggests that improving service and technology is more likely to strengthen recommendation without sacrificing margin.
The evidence points to a relatively simple conclusion: the most valuable cash-management relationships combine reliable execution and technology with a bank that understands the client and behaves like a trusted partner. But that formula does not look identical everywhere. Global reach, local decision-making, specialist products and domestic infrastructure matter differently from one market to another. The next chapter examines which banks are converting those capabilities into leadership, globally and across individual regions.
Top ranked cash management providers
The global cash-management market is still shaped by a relatively small group of banks that can support corporates across multiple countries, currencies and entities. But the survey suggests that reach alone is no longer sufficient. The strongest providers combine international coverage with consistent technology and relationship teams capable of translating that infrastructure into reliable day-to-day execution.
That creates a clear divide within the leading group. Citi, Bank of America and JPMorgan are particularly well regarded for technology, standardisation or advisory capability. Deutsche Bank and Crédit Agricole score more strongly for relationship quality and specialist expertise. HSBC is the provider that most consistently combines both sides of the proposition.
HSBC
HSBC’s advantage is not simply the size of its network, but the consistency with which clients experience that network as a single proposition.
Respondents across markets repeatedly connect international reach with execution. Indian corporates highlight its “strong global banking network, efficient cash-management solutions [and] reliable payment processing” as well as its “global scale, cross-border capability, liquidity management and trade expertise”. The common thread is that geographic reach translates into practical treasury capability rather than remaining an abstract network advantage.
The service scores reinforce that position. HSBC leads on client service, products and technology, while its trusted-partner rating is the highest in the study. Almost a quarter of comments explicitly mention client service, often in terms of accessibility and responsiveness.
Bank of America
For Bank of America, CashPro is the centre of gravity. Respondents consistently identify the platform as the bank’s most distinctive asset, with one US corporate describing it simply as “the best banking portal I’ve encountered”.
Bank of America’s proposition goes beyond the front end. Clients also value a coverage model designed to simplify multinational relationships. An Irish respondent highlights the centralisation of relationship coverage across Western Europe, reducing the need to manage the bank country by country.
Bank of America also appears to play a pragmatic role in multi-bank structures. One US respondent uses it to fill geographic gaps left by regional providers. Its global proposition is therefore built around technology-led reliability and centralised coverage, with particular strength among US-headquartered multinationals and international corporates seeking a consistent global platform.
JPMorgan
JPMorgan’s strongest proposition is its product proposition, delivered through superior technology capabilities.
Respondents describe a bank that helps them change the way treasury operates, combining advisory capability with technology and implementation. US corporates praise its ability to understand the business, invest in useful technology and bring forward ideas to improve efficiency, while an Indian respondent highlights the speed with which it has extended its services.
Technology is consequently its strongest score. But the bank’s footprint is more selective than peers. Its franchise therefore appears strongest among sophisticated multinational clients that value technology, advisory capability and execution, particularly in major financial centres.
Crédit Agricole
Crédit Agricole competes differently from the largest global-network banks. Its position is supported by particularly strong regional and sector franchises rather than uniform breadth across every market.
Client service is its strongest dimension and responsiveness dominates the commentary. Respondents also frequently connect cash management with credit and trade finance, suggesting that the bank is strongest where it can bring several parts of the corporate relationship together.
Its specialist capabilities reinforce that positioning, including expertise in agribusiness and more specialised financing instruments. The franchise therefore appears particularly strong in markets where Crédit Agricole has deep local relationships and sector knowledge, rather than as a fully standardised global platform.
Deutsche Bank
Deutsche Bank stands out for proactivity, particularly where treasury requirements become complex.
Respondents repeatedly describe teams that identify problems, propose solutions and bring forward products rather than waiting for requests. A Dutch respondent praises proactive transaction support and product advice, while a German corporate describes the relationship as a dialogue “at eye level”.
Its franchise is particularly relevant across Europe and in more complex international markets. A Swedish respondent praises the bank’s adaptability and ability to meet requirements in difficult jurisdictions. That suggests Deutsche Bank’s value lies not only in where it operates but in helping clients navigate markets where a standard global template does not always work.
Citi
Citi’s competitive advantage is standardisation at scale.
Respondents repeatedly describe the ability to access comparable products, processes and infrastructure across markets. A Swiss corporate points to “global scale, standards, global support, automation [and] seamless operations”, while a respondent in the Netherlands highlights the bank’s broad network and highly standardised transaction-banking products.
For multinational treasurers, that consistency can be more important than any single feature. Citi reduces variation across an inherently fragmented international operating environment.
BBVA
BBVA’s position within the global cohort is rooted primarily in its Spanish and Latin American franchises, particularly Mexico.
Respondents highlight its physical presence in Latin America and product expertise in Spain. Its digital proposition is the clearest product strength, with clients describing e-banking as broad, simple and adaptable across corporate products.
Standard Chartered
Standard Chartered’s relevance comes from being particularly useful where banking becomes difficult.
The comments cluster around trade, FX, hard-currency access and cross-border payments in markets where those capabilities cannot always be taken for granted. Respondents also value its ability to support operations in restricted or operationally challenging countries.
That reflects the particular shape of Standard Chartered’s franchise across Asia, the Middle East and emerging-market trade corridors.
BNP Paribas
BNP Paribas stands out most clearly in European liquidity management. Respondents repeatedly point to cash concentration, notional pooling and local branch coverage supporting zero-balance structures, while SwiftNet and ERP integration provide a second strand to the proposition.
Its European franchise is central to that strength. For corporates trying to centralise liquidity across multiple European entities, BNP Paribas combines local-market presence with regional pooling capability.
Several comments also reveal its role as a complementary international provider. One Belgian respondent values the bank because it is present where other peers might not be.
Santander
Santander’s position is driven heavily by its established franchises in Latin America and Europe.
Respondents value credit capacity, continuity of coverage and long-standing relationships. Brazilian corporates highlight credit limits and stable account-management teams, suggesting that relationship incumbency remains a significant source of strength.
Africa is the region where cash management is most visibly shaped by the realities of moving money across fragmented markets. While technology and service matter, respondents repeatedly return to a more fundamental question: can the bank provide access to hard currency, execute cross-border payments reliably and do so when local liquidity is constrained?
Standard Bank sits at the top of the regional ranking on that basis. Commentary is consistent around foreign exchange, local market access and responsiveness. A client praises its ability to “provide forex services”. Ugandan respondents similarly highlight “good rates and swift responses” alongside a “flawless experience and diverse channels”.
Ecobank demonstrates the strength of the pan-African model even more clearly. It has the highest recommendation score, with commentary spanning Anglophone and Francophone Africa. Its differentiation is as much digital as geographic. The Omni platform is repeatedly praised, including by a respondent who describes Ecobank as one of the region’s more advanced banks, with better host-to-host and online banking functionality than competitors. That platform becomes particularly powerful when connected to infrastructure specific to African markets. Respondents highlight integration with telecoms and mobile-money networks, allowing funds to move between merchant wallets and bank accounts through providers such as Airtel and M-Pesa. In Francophone markets, speed is another recurring advantage: a Burkina Faso respondent says funds arrive from Ecobank “much faster than from other banks”. Ecobank’s strength therefore lies in translating a broad African network into infrastructure that reflects how payments actually work locally.
The international banks compete on a different axis. Citi’s African proposition is built around automation and global standards rather than sheer local footprint. Egyptian respondents point to automated payments, CitiDirect, government-payment infrastructure and trade products, while clients in Senegal and DR Congo highlight international transfers and online execution. Technology is its strongest regional score.
Standard Chartered occupies a more specialised position between the global and regional models. Its commentary focuses on operational execution in difficult markets. One Ugandan respondent highlights fast online payments, regular system updates and affordable bulk mobile payments – a capability not widely referenced for other international banks. Elsewhere, the bank is credited with supporting operations in restricted markets and providing working-capital support. That makes Standard Chartered particularly relevant where global connectivity has to coexist with market complexity.
Absa’s role is more concentrated around FX. Respondents in Uganda and Ghana repeatedly cite FX availability, rate management and international payments, making hard-currency access the clearest reason for using the bank. Supplier payments, prepaid cards and working-capital support appear around the edges, but the relationship is comparatively narrow. Its weaker recommendation score suggests a bank delivering an important function without yet translating that utility into broader advocacy.
The Francophone markets reveal another layer of the regional structure. Societe Generale’s African franchise is principally trade-led, with respondents in Algeria highlighting integration with cash-management products. In Burkina Faso, clients reference account levelling, payroll and supplier payments, while respondents in Cameroon and Togo value proximity and quick feedback from local service teams.
Bank of Africa is more operational. Respondents cite project-fund management, collections, salary payments, online banking and local investment loans. Access Bank is used mainly for hard-currency purchases and international transfers, with competitive charges providing one positive point. UBA’s respondents describe the bank being used for currency exchange, supplier payments, project funds and treasury advances.
The African results therefore show a market where access and execution still come before sophistication. Standard Bank wins through deep local market relevance; Ecobank combines pan-African reach with digital and mobile-money infrastructure; Citi brings automation and global standards; and Standard Chartered solves cross-border requirements in difficult markets. Many relationships remain tied to individual needs such as FX, trade finance or domestic payments.
Asia-Pacific is the deepest respondent base in the survey, but also the least uniform banking market. Corporates operating across the region need global connectivity, but they cannot rely on international reach alone. Tax payments, domestic collections, local clearing systems, distributor finance and regulatory requirements still vary significantly between markets. The strongest treasury structures therefore tend to combine a regional or global anchor bank with institutions that provide the domestic capabilities the anchor cannot.
HSBC comes closest to bridging those two worlds. APAC is its strongest-scoring region and respondents describe a bank that combines global connectivity with genuinely local execution. Malaysian clients cite its regional coverage alongside cross-border cash and liquidity management, while respondents in Vietnam and Sri Lanka point to much more granular capabilities, including domestic payments, State Treasury settlements and support around local payment cut-off times. In Asia, its advantage is therefore not simply network size: clients appear able to use the network without losing access to local market infrastructure.
That becomes an important point of comparison for the other international banks. Deutsche Bank’s regional proposition is strongest where treasury becomes operationally difficult. Chinese and Pakistani respondents highlight repatriation, FX management, cross-border payments and regulatory compliance, while clients in Indonesia and Singapore also credit it with effective domestic cash management. The combination gives Deutsche a distinctive role in complex or restricted flows. Client service is the most mentioned strength amongst Asian comments, with more than 30% of the bank’s clients referring to it.
JPMorgan approaches the region from another direction. Its commentary is much more technical, centred on host-to-host connectivity, payments, reporting, FX and regional consolidation. Bank of America occupies a similarly selective position: with a targeted strategy, it focuses on connectivity, payments, FX, trade flows and reporting rather than extensive domestic coverage. Both banks appear strongest with sophisticated multinational treasuries that prioritise infrastructure and execution over a dense local network.
Citi sits closer to the network end of that spectrum, although its Asian story is more operational than its global one. Clients cite automated sweeps in India, integration with payroll and supplier payments in Indonesia and commercial cards in Australia. Its breadth remains central to the proposition: one Australian respondent says Citi is retained specifically because another peer cannot cover every country in which the company operates.
The regional banks compete on a different basis. DBS stands out for what it has built rather than where it is present. Clients praise interface simplicity, FX and domestic payment economics, leaving technology as its strongest dimension. Its superior digital capabilities are frequently mentioned by respondents. ANZ is more geographically focused still: its role is predominantly an Oceania one, built around competitive returns on cash, pooling and liquidity management across Australia and New Zealand.
Standard Chartered’s franchise illustrates another form of regional specialisation. Its strongest relevance is across South and Southeast Asia, particularly where working capital and access to hard currency become critical. Sri Lankan respondents recall support with foreign currency during periods of market stress, while clients elsewhere point to reliable payroll and improving digital execution.
Further down into Southeast Asia, the competitive advantage becomes even more local. UOB is valued for regional collections, payments and responsiveness, including 24/7 State Treasury payments in Indonesia and pooling in Malaysia. CIMB’s proposition is more straightforwardly transactional, with competitive pricing and reliable operations in Malaysia and Indonesia. Maybank follows a similar pattern in Malaysia: dependable cash management and a clean digital interface are strengths, with operational competence being mentioned by respondents.
MUFG, Mizuho and SMBC are frequently present because multinational corporates need domestic services that an international bank cannot provide. Clients cite direct debit, tax payments, promissory notes, local collections and legally required autopay arrangements. MUFG is the clearest local-rails provider; Mizuho adds a stronger financing and relationship dimension, including significant credit capacity; SMBC’s commentary describes strong domestic capabilities.
The APAC results therefore point to a layered banking model rather than winner-takes-all consolidation. HSBC comes closest to combining international scale with local depth, but the wider market rewards specialisation: Deutsche Bank in difficult cross-border flows, Citi in filling network gaps, DBS in digital execution, Standard Chartered in challenging emerging markets and domestic banks where local infrastructure still cannot be substituted. The complexity of the region means that the strongest treasury model is often not choosing one bank but choosing the right bank for each layer of the operating structure.
Central and Eastern Europe is a market where local presence is critical. The survey suggests that corporates reward banks that can make decisions close to the client, respond quickly and adapt to national operating conditions. That is particularly visible in Ukraine, Romania, Serbia and Turkey. Operating resilience is an important part of that story, particularly in markets affected by geopolitical or economic disruption.
UniCredit has the most diverse respondent base in CEE and the highest recommendation score. A Slovak corporate describes its “strong regional presence across Central and Eastern Europe” and says that deep local-market knowledge combined with a seamless cross-border network “significantly simplify our regional liquidity management”. That ability to connect local franchises is reinforced by service: Bulgarian clients cite “always very quick reactions and effective solutions”, while a Serbian respondent says support is most visible in a “fast and accurate reaction”. The proposition is not purely relationship-led. Romanian respondents single out BusinessNet for stability and payment-processing speed, while one of the most sophisticated use cases in the regional file involves collecting trade receivables through virtual accounts integrated with a TMS or ERP system. UniCredit therefore shows what a strong CEE franchise can look like when local responsiveness is combined with regional infrastructure. Its trusted-partner score, the highest in the region, reinforces that position.
Crédit Agricole is ranked #1 in the region. One respondent simply says: “Crédit Agricole has the best client service.” Others point to the “speed of payments”, a convenient client-bank system and “foreign payments supported at high level”, combined with quick reaction from the bank. Another praises a “consistent proactive approach” and readiness to resolve outstanding queries efficiently. What makes Crédit Agricole different from the larger international banks is the depth of local sector expertise behind that service. Respondents cite partnership programmes for farmers and “a highly qualified team of agribusiness specialists”.
ING offers another route to differentiation: removing friction. It has one of the highest technology scores in the region, and clients in Romania and Poland praise its “strong digital cash-management platform” and a banking system that is “user-friendly and easy to handle”. But the more revealing comment comes from Ukraine: “ING Bank Ukraine provides the fastest service among all our providers, price is competitive, document flow is minimal.” That combination of digital ease and administrative lightness is important in a region where corporates often still contend with complex processes. Turkish respondents add fast and flexible responses, while notional pooling through Bank Mendes Gans gives ING a stronger structural-liquidity proposition. The result is a bank that competes not on the sheer breadth of a CEE network but on making regional treasury easier to operate.
Citi’s CEE story is more service-led than its global profile. Ukrainian respondents describe continuity in “payment processing, liquidity management and reliable banking operations”, while a Romanian corporate highlights “flexibility in foreign-currency usage powered by the professionalism of the local team”. Another combines “great customer support and technology” with CitiDirect capabilities. Administrative efficiency also matters more here than in Citi’s other regional files. A Polish respondent praises “minimal documentation requirements making fund transfers easy and convenient”, while Bulgarian clients value the bank’s ability to handle routine flows and significant one-off transactions.
Deutsche Bank is used particularly for group treasury structures, cross-border flows and FX. A Hungarian respondent specifically names FX4Cash as the capability that “supports global trading the most”, while Turkish clients cite inbound and outbound payments and collections. Service nevertheless carries much of the relationship: quick answers, knowledgeable client managers and ad-hoc problem solving recur across Hungary, the Czech Republic and Turkey.
The importance of local infrastructure becomes even more obvious among the regional banks. Raiffeisen is repeatedly praised for “individual approach”, technical capability, strong service and “flexibility in decision-making”. Its regional subsidiaries also solve practical problems: in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a respondent values same-day crediting of coin-heavy retail takings, while a Serbian client describes a much broader proposition spanning advisory and regulatory support, cash management, trade finance, FX and automation.
Erste takes that domestic practicality further. A Croatian respondent describes an in-store safe where “cash deposited in the safe is visible on the account immediately and the risk passes to the bank”, while a Serbian corporate values the ability to accept its full daily cash takings.
Other regional providers win on narrower combinations of price, financing and domestic reach. Ziraat Bankası’s Turkish franchise is built around extensive branch coverage, credit availability and relatively limited bureaucracy. OTP attracts clients through competitive payment pricing, attractive yields on cash and working-capital financing. Intesa Sanpaolo is strongest in the Balkans for FX, ancillary products such as guarantees and competitively priced domestic and international payments, while Societe Generale’s Romanian franchise combines flexible financing with services such as nationwide physical cash collection.
BNP Paribas is often used for its strong geographic network, with commentary focused on payments, FX, payroll and options for surplus liquidity. One Romanian respondent describes it succinctly as “always available on call, immediate response, good platforms”.
The CEE results therefore tell a consistent story: local empowerment wins. UniCredit translates a broad regional network into a coherent treasury proposition; Crédit Agricole wins through deep local expertise; ING removes administrative friction; and banks such as Raiffeisen and Erste remain indispensable because they solve domestic problems that cannot be standardised away. In CEE, clients appear to value the bank that can act quickly and locally more than the bank with the most impressive global platform.
Latin America draws a particularly clear distinction between the banks that connect the region to global treasury and those that dominate day-to-day banking inside individual markets. Multinationals turn to JPMorgan, HSBC, Citi and Bank of America for cross-border centralisation, common platforms and visibility across countries. Domestic and regional incumbents win for a different reason: they combine local payment infrastructure, credit and pricing with relationship teams that understand how business is actually conducted on the ground.
JPMorgan leads the regional ranking through the first of those models. Respondents repeatedly frame the bank as the infrastructure through which Latin American operations are connected to global treasury. A Colombian corporate says its international capabilities have allowed the company to centralise banking operations, creating “standardisation and efficiency in payment and cash-management processes”. In Brazil, the same proposition appears through international transfers and a global banking structure that brings “security and reliability to international transactions”. Mexican respondents describe fast service, periodic visits and a bank that “understands our business globally”. Technology remains the strongest dimension, but the regional proposition works because global infrastructure is accompanied by sufficient local engagement to make centralisation practical.
HSBC occupies similar territory, with Mexico as the strongest market. Clients talk about the strength of the bank’s international network and the people delivering it. One respondent praises “premium executives, agility in resolving problems, customer service, a wide range of banking products”, while others highlight personalised attention alongside FX, security controls and a useful platform. One respondent says HSBC delivers value through “international capabilities, expertise in cross-border operations and management of foreign-currency flows”.
Bank of America is positioned more explicitly as the window out of the region. Brazilian and Mexican respondents describe cross-border payments, FX and liquidity management, but the most distinctive benefit is visibility. One Brazilian corporate points to “consolidated cash visibility across different countries”, while CashPro is described in Mexico as “a very robust platform for managing bank accounts globally”.
Citi’s regional story is also built on connecting countries, but through standardisation. An Argentine respondent captures the proposition particularly well: “They are leaders in technology solutions and use the same platform in all countries. They have a regional approach just like multinational companies.” That makes Citi particularly relevant to corporates trying to run Latin America as one operating region rather than a collection of independent banking markets.
The domestic market looks very different. In Brazil, Itaú’s position is built overwhelmingly on the relationship manager. Respondents frequently name individual bankers when explaining why the relationship works. One corporate describes the differentiator as “flexibility and reaction times”, adding: “My [relationship] manager has the authority to take decisions and approve issues on the fly. The relationship is unmatched – in an era of digital banks, the manager relationship is the big win.” Clients also describe Itaú as “fast and efficient, always with a new solution for whatever we need”, suggesting that the relationship model is not simply warm but empowered. Technology provides the third pillar, with respondents praising modern tools for cash control and operational agility.
BBVA performs a comparable domestic role in Mexico, although the emphasis is more operational. Clients highlight high-volume payments, easy account opening and a digital platform that is simple and broad enough to support a wide corporate product set. One respondent says BBVA provides “efficient bulk payments, operational solidity and technological capabilities”, helping maintain control over centralised treasury.
Santander’s Latin American franchise is built around a different part of the corporate relationship, respondents highlighting the power of combining world-class trade finance instruments with cash-management solutions. There is also an interesting technology angle. A Brazilian respondent values platforms that “help day-to-day without needing an API or IT involvement – ready-made software”.
Mexican respondents describe Scotiabank as supporting “specific transactions, transactional services and particular treasury products, complementing the multi-bank arrangement”, while an Argentine corporate positions it as an international back-up with particular strength in Canada. Its strongest differentiator is responsiveness, with clients praising same-day answers, flexibility and personalised attention. There are also signs of a wider regional proposition – one Panamanian respondent values “regional integration instead of independent negotiations with each country”.
In Latin America, global banks connect the region to international liquidity, platforms and centralised processes; powerful local franchises provide the domestic relationships, financing and operating infrastructure that those platforms cannot fully replace. JPMorgan leads through global centralisation, Citi through regional standardisation and HSBC through the combination of international reach and a strong Mexican franchise. But Itaú shows the enduring strength of the local model: in one of the survey’s most digitally advanced banking relationships, clients still regard an empowered relationship manager as the defining competitive advantage.
The Middle East produces one of the clearest contrasts in the survey between two different models of cash-management leadership.
HSBC is strongest where corporates need international coordination, structured liquidity management and sophisticated treasury advice. Mashreq reaches a similarly strong position through something more immediate: speed, digital execution and the strength of its UAE franchise. Below them, the market becomes increasingly specialised, with banks winning particular roles in trade finance, Shariah-compliant liquidity, domestic payments or access to international infrastructure.
HSBC’s respondents describe treasury transformation programmes, where one corporate points to the bank’s strong proposition for “cash visibility and centralisation, liquidity and working-capital optimisation, real-time treasury capability, payments and automation integration (ERP/APIs), risk management”. A Qatari respondent captures the network advantage more succinctly: “Effective local coverage and coordination of global coverage from Qatar”. What makes that proposition distinctive, however, is that the international infrastructure is accompanied by a high-touch relationship model. Respondents frequently name individual bankers when explaining why the relationship works. One UAE client describes the implementation team as “more a partner and guide/mentor for us”, while a Bahraini corporate goes further, calling HSBC “the best corporate bank ever with great relationship manager very close to customer”.
Mashreq reaches the top of the market through a different route. It has the highest recommendation score in the region and the strongest recurring theme is speed. A UAE respondent praises a fund-conversion process that is “very fast” alongside competitive FX rates, while another highlights “payments and collections efficiency, particularly in processing transactions quickly”. The emphasis is on reducing friction in everyday execution. That operational speed is reinforced by digital banking, particularly for smaller and domestically focused corporates. One respondent points to “strong day-to-day banking support through its digital banking platform, fast local transfers, responsive client service and convenient business account management”. Service appears in a third of Mashreq’s comments, indicating that the goodwill extends beyond the technology itself.
Citi occupies another important position in the regional banking structure: continuity. Its value is particularly visible when local conditions become difficult. A Lebanese respondent says Citi “somehow assured the availability of cash during any expected country instability”, describing that capability as crucial to operations. Elsewhere, a Luxembourg-based respondent calls it the “go-to bank for any cash ops matters in EMEA region”. Network is consequently one of the most frequently cited themes for Citi.
The importance of local market specialisation becomes even clearer among the regional banks. Kuwait Finance House is differentiated by a capability no other leading bank in the regional results owns as explicitly: Shariah-compliant treasury and liquidity management. One Bahraini respondent highlights access to short- and long-term liquidity through “money market instruments, deposits and Shariah-compliant funding solutions”, while special wakala is singled out as an attractive investment-management option.
Emirates NBD fulfils a more domestic role. Service is mentioned in 41% of comments, but respondents generally position the bank as part of the day-to-day operations. Respondents also highlight its appetite for business, attractive fixed-deposit and bonding rates, and online banking that is described as strong, fast and reliable.
Standard Chartered sits between the global network and domestic models. Its Middle East franchise is particularly strong where treasury overlaps with trade and financing. Qatari respondents cite the “availability of liquidity in foreign currency”, while other comments reference payroll, international transfers, sub-account structures and project implementation in the UAE. Products are its strongest scoring dimension.
Arab Bank’s respondents mention supplier payments, hedging and cards. One Qatari respondent describes operations as “very centralised”, while a Saudi client asks for greater flexibility on deposit conditions.
The Middle East is not converging around a single model of cash-management excellence, but results show a market in which leadership depends on banks truly understanding treasurers’ needs. HSBC is strongest in structured international treasury; Mashreq in speed and digital domestic execution. Citi provides continuity across fragmented or volatile markets, while Kuwait Finance House, Emirates NBD and Standard Chartered become indispensable when Shariah-compliant liquidity, local banking or trade finance takes priority. The region is not converging around a single model of cash-management excellence – it is rewarding banks that are clear about the particular job they perform best.
US treasurers are not primarily judging banks on whether they can provide global reach – every institution in the leading group can. Instead, they differentiate between them on the quality of advice, the ability to deliver implementations, responsiveness when something goes wrong and the stability of the technology underpinning day-to-day treasury.
JPMorgan leads on that basis. Its North American commentary is notably light on reach and heavy on ideas, execution and understanding of the client. One US respondent describes “superb advisory capabilities”, adding that the bank “understands our business and invests in technology that helps us. They deliver on implementations and service.” Another says JPMorgan is “great at coming to us with innovative ideas” and recommending changes that make operations more efficient. That proactive behaviour is important because it moves the relationship beyond product provision. Respondents also praise fast support – “quick responses, easy to work with” – and repeatedly mention the ease of opening accounts. JPMorgan’s score for understanding the client’s business is one of the strongest in the region and helps explain why it leads: treasurers are rewarding a bank that appears able to combine strategic advice with relatively low-friction delivery.
HSBC’s North American role is different, bringing the world, especially Asia-Pacific to the market and vice-versa. Respondents often value it precisely because of what it does outside the US. One corporate praises “great customer service, proactive in communicating changes across the various countries”, while another highlights a “great coverage model” and effective tracking of issues and new initiatives. The global network therefore matters, but not simply as geographic coverage. US-based treasurers are using HSBC to manage complexity in the countries beyond their home market and value the coordination that comes with it. Advisory is a complementary strength: one respondent says the bank brings “a lot of different ideas to us about various products and services”, while collaboration around industry developments appears more frequently in clients’ commentary. That combination helps HSBC achieve the highest recommendation score in North America and a high trusted-partner rating.
Citi is judged against a different benchmark: whether its highly standardised global proposition can meet the service expectations of sophisticated US treasurers. One respondent says: “Their platform and offering is really good, covers all aspects of what we need.” The strongest positives go beyond the platform itself. Respondents value “concierge care and access to subject-matter experts”, global cash pooling, local presence and engagement on new developments and industry change.
Deutsche Bank plays a more specialised role. US corporates often use it to access the European corridor and for complex global needs. Respondents praise “reliable payment processing, global transaction banking and efficient cash-management services”, as well as geographic reach and responsive client teams. What stands out more in North America than elsewhere is the value equation. One respondent describes “excellent ongoing support with growing product offering/solutions at a reasonable price”, while another highlights proactive suggestions around costs, services and investment returns. That combination produces the highest trusted-parter score in the region.
Bank of America, by contrast, is judged squarely as a home-market incumbent. Similarly to other regions, CashPro dominates the narrative. One US corporate calls it “the best banking portal I’ve encountered”, while another praises “superior customer service” and reliable delivery of the fundamentals of cash management around the world.
The North American results therefore show a market where execution quality separates banks that all possess global scale. JPMorgan leads because clients see advice, implementation and understanding of their business working together. HSBC is strongest where US-based treasurers need their international footprint coordinated effectively. Citi continues to win on product breadth, Deutsche Bank earns trust as a specialist global and European partner, and Bank of America remains anchored by CashPro and domestic relationship strength.
Western Europe is the most structurally sophisticated cash-management market in the survey. Respondents talk less about whether payments are processed efficiently and more about how treasury is organised around them – pooling architecture, virtual accounts, Swift and ERP connectivity, multi-entity visibility and the centralisation of liquidity. That changes the basis of competition. Global transaction banks are judged on their ability to design and connect complex treasury structures, while European champions such as UniCredit, BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole compete through local depth, advisory and proximity to the client.
HSBC sits at the intersection of those two models. UK respondents describe a bank embedded in the broader treasury agenda. One says HSBC is “well plugged into our strategic goals and knowledgeable about the services that our business requires”; another highlights “exceptional service” supporting liquidity reserves and seamless accounts-receivable and accounts-payable activity. The relationship also extends beyond products. Respondents refer to quick access to additional facilities and competitive returns on surplus cash, while a French client credits HSBC with managing international flows, resolving blocked transfers and leading implementation of new payment-tracking tools. The result is a proposition that brings together treasury infrastructure, balance-sheet support and advisory.
Citi approaches the same sophisticated treasury market through standardisation and connectivity. Its Western European commentary is perhaps the clearest expression of its overall cash-management proposition. A Portuguese respondent summarises the relationship through “liquidity management and cash visibility, global payments and collections, multi-bank connectivity and integration, standardisation and process efficiency”. What matters here is that clients increasingly connect that infrastructure with better local delivery. A respondent praises the combination of a local service desk and relationship-manager engagement for resolving issues “at speed and with quality”, while another client points to “great improvements to CitiDirect”. Network reach remains important – it is cited in a quarter of the comments – but Citi’s strongest Western European relationships appear to be those where global standardisation is reinforced by credible local service. Citi’s highest trusted-partner score is recorded in this region.
JPMorgan European clients in the sample tend to use the bank for more sophisticated solutions: payment-on-behalf-of (POBO) programmes, virtual accounts, host-to-host connectivity, intragroup payments and FX. One Luxembourg respondent says JPMorgan “runs our POBO program”, while a UK corporate describes it as “extremely good on large payment transaction processing”, with strong client service and leadership in innovation.
Deutsche Bank’s clear differentiator is its role as a partner for corporates. On its home territory, respondents repeatedly describe a bank that volunteers ideas rather than waiting for instructions. One UK client says the bank is “always on hand with general advice” on everything from opening accounts and maximising returns on spare cash to implementing a TMS. A Dutch respondent puts it more simply: “They think with us and they are very proactive on advising where they see possibilities.” That advisory relationship is increasingly connected to product development. A German respondent says virtual accounts are “technically upgrading our treasury”, while UK clients praise the bank’s project teams for being active, efficient and supportive during implementation.
The European regional champions challenge those global banks through a different kind of depth. UniCredit’s Western European franchise is concentrated particularly in Italy and Germany, where respondents value continuous access to back-office, FX and specialist teams. One Italian client praises the bank’s “complete, timely, efficient and productive availability” when supporting operational problems and new projects. That proximity is backed by genuine structural work: rationalising bank accounts and charges, implementing domestic cash pools, improving centralised treasury efficiency and, in Germany, providing data that can be extracted and analysed further.
BNP Paribas has an even more clearly defined role. Western Europe is where its liquidity-management franchise comes into its own. Respondents discuss “SwiftNet connectivity and flexible EUR cash pool with several levels of treasury centralisation”, a “highly structured organisation at European level for cash pooling management”, and the local branch density required to support zero-balance structures. ERP integration provides the second pillar. One French corporate says the combination of BNP Paribas’s platform and Swift connectivity allows payments to flow directly from its ERP, while a Swiss respondent praises project-management support backed by stable infrastructure. Liquidity is mentioned more frequently for BNP Paribas than for any other bank in the regional group.
Rather than leading with transaction-banking infrastructure solely, Crédit Agricole’s clients in France and Italy describe a broader corporate-banking relationship. Working-capital management, factoring and financing sit alongside cash management, while one Italian respondent values “360-degree advisory” and the availability of both the relationship manager and specialist adviser. Responsiveness is the recurring advantage. Clients point to immediate responses when deploying surplus liquidity, changing charges or solving day-to-day issues.
BBVA and Santander occupy more geographically specific positions, with strong focus on Iberian corporates. BBVA’s respondents praise an intuitive digital interface alongside effective relationship managers. Its additional value is as a bridge into Latin America: one Austrian client specifically cites South American connectivity, while a French respondent uses it for FX supporting suppliers and subsidiaries. The combination of Spanish domestic strength and Latin American reach gives BBVA a role that is more distinctive than its relatively small respondent base might suggest.
One of Santander’s Portuguese respondents praises its point-of-sale (POS) network and a “fast, intuitive app”, while Spanish clients highlight advice and an effective website. The relationship teams attract positive comments.
Western Europe therefore shows cash management moving decisively beyond payment execution. The competitive battleground is treasury orchestration: how effectively banks can centralise liquidity, connect systems, reduce the number of accounts and give treasurers control across multiple entities and countries. HSBC combines that sophistication with broad strategic engagement; Citi standardises it across markets; JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank compete through complex structures and advice; while BNP Paribas, UniCredit and Crédit Agricole demonstrate that deep European franchises remain at the epicenter of treasury activities, becoming a trusted partner for corporates in this region.
The next treasury operating model
How ready are treasuries to embrace new technologies? The survey shows a market progressing at very different speeds. Some treasuries have real-time visibility, deeply integrated bank tools and AI already in production; others still lack a consolidated daily cash position. AI is moving towards procurement, while tokenised money remains largely at the evaluation stage.
Taken together, these findings suggest that the next phase of treasury transformation will not be defined by individual technologies. It will depend on the foundations beneath them: connected data, visibility across accounts and entities, and sufficient integration to turn new functionality into something treasurers can actually use.
Real-time cash visibility
Base: 3,460 mid-market corporates ($50 million to $500 million) answering this module.
Real-time liquidity visibility is becoming an important treasury objective, but the market is still some distance from achieving it consistently.
What makes the gap commercially interesting is that the appetite for better visibility is already strong. More than seven in 10 respondents rate real-time global liquidity visibility as important over the next 24 months.
An interesting finding is that demand falls as treasury maturity declines: companies that already have real-time or intraday visibility are much more likely to value it than those with no consolidated view at all. In other words, the treasuries furthest from real-time visibility are often the least convinced that they need it.
Usage of bank liquidity tools
Base: 3,630 mid-market corporates ($50 million to $500 million) answering this module.
Adoption of advanced treasury tools remains fragmented. No individual capability reaches half the respondents, with the two most used capabilities being the ones requiring least implementation or training time.
Treasuries tend either to use little advanced tooling or to adopt a broad suite of capabilities. Almost four in 10 use one of the eight tools measured, while 18% of respondents use almost all of them. Once a treasury commits to deeper digital integration with a provider, additional capabilities become easier to adopt; without that foundation, individual tools struggle to gain traction.
The relationship with advocacy strengthens that interpretation. NPS for the principal provider changes little at low levels of tool adoption, but rises sharply once treasuries use five or more capabilities, reaching its highest level among those using seven or eight. The pattern does not prove that technology adoption creates loyalty – satisfied clients may simply be more willing to integrate further – but it suggests that depth of integration matters more than the presence of any single feature.
The same pattern appears in liquidity visibility. Treasuries with more mature, consolidated cash views consistently use more tools, particularly forecasting, cross-currency consolidation and receivables intelligence. Those with no consolidated view use the fewest.
AI in treasury
Base: 2,098 large corporates (>$500 million) and 3,123 mid-market corporates ($50 million to $500 million).
AI adoption in treasury is beginning to move beyond isolated experimentation, but the market is developing unevenly. Large corporates are almost twice as likely as mid-market companies to have AI either live or in pilot, and across both segments roughly one treasury in four is already using it somewhere in the function.
Around a third of both large and mid-market corporates are actively evaluating AI. That makes the next 12 months potentially decisive: if those evaluations translate into investment, treasury AI will become a meaningful procurement category rather than a collection of individual pilots. For banks and technology providers, this is the segment that is still available to win.
What corporates want from AI is also becoming clearer. Adoption is concentrated in operational efficiency rather than autonomous decision-making. The most common applications are automating routine tasks and reducing manual reconciliation, followed by improving forecasting. Fraud detection sits considerably further down the list, while larger corporates are beginning to apply AI to liquidity and investment management.
Tokenised money
Base: 2,219 large corporates (>$500 million)
Among large corporates, 12.0% already use at least one tokenised instrument and a further 19.1% are considering one. The clearest early winner is the bank-issued tokenised deposit, with live usage more than twice that of stablecoins.
Among companies running or piloting tokenised solutions, 70.7% source the capability from a transaction bank, far ahead of fintech and wallet providers, in-house development, crypto exchanges or crypto-native firms. Whatever the longer-term competitive landscape, corporates currently appear more comfortable accessing tokenised money through an existing banking relationship.
The use case is also more pragmatic than much of the industry debate suggests. Faster settlement and 24/7 availability is the leading driver, followed by access to new digital ecosystems, better liquidity visibility and lower cross-border costs.
More revealing still, almost a quarter of corporates say there is no clear business case yet. That uncertainty defines the near-term outlook. More than seven in 10 large corporates say it is too early to assess how their usage will change during the next 12 to 24 months, while only a small minority expect tokenised money to move into core treasury flows or replace traditional deposits.
The instrument with the strongest traction is the tokenised deposit and the most convincing benefit is faster, always-on settlement. The bigger challenge is proving that these instruments solve a treasury problem materially better than existing payment and liquidity infrastructure.
The technology may change, but the competitive test remains remarkably consistent. Treasurers reward providers that solve practical problems, execute reliably and understand how their businesses operate. Real-time visibility, AI and tokenised money will create new ways to do that, but technology alone will not create advocacy. The advantage will belong to banks that can integrate those capabilities deeply enough into treasury operations that they become part of the relationship itself.