Businesses lag consumers in moving away from checks

The migration from checks to electronic payments among businesses is progressing, but at a much slower pace than the migration of checks written by consumers. That’s the bottom line finding of a pair of research papers released by the Federal Reserve.

Altogether, the number of checks fell from 17 billon in 2015 to 9.2 billion in 2024. The number written by consumers fell from 1.83 per month in 2021 to 1.12 in 2025, according to a research paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Less than a decade ago, in 2017 to 2018, consumers wrote 3.3 checks per month.

The Atlanta Fed’s data comes from surveys of consumer payment choice, and yearly data gathering by the Fed.

Among consumers the decline in the use of checks to pay bills was significantly larger than the decline in the use of checks to pay for purchases of goods and services. The weighted average monthly number of checks per consumer for non-bill payments fell from 0.63 in 2021 to 0.43 in 2025, which works out to an 8 percent compound annual decline.

Slow rise in values

While consumers are writing fewer checks, the value of checks they do write is increasing. The weighed median dollar value of a consumer check payment (bill payment and non-bill combined) rose slowly, from $120 in 2021 to $137.58 in 2025. At least part of this increase can be attributed to inflation, the Atlanta Fed explained.

The weighted median value of checks written by consumers to pay bills rose from $155.12 in 2021 to $165 in 2025. The weighted median value of checks written for purchases of goods and services (non-bill payments) rose from $96.50 in 2021 to $100 in 2025.

Older Americans are more inclined to write checks, and the number of checks rises with age. For example, consumers between the ages of 18 and 24 barely write any checks (about 0.077 a month), while those between the ages of 55 and 64 write an average 1.48 checks a month.

Migration more challenging for businesses

U.S. businesses have increasingly turned to electronic payment methods over the past decade, but checks remain a mainstay. Checks made up 32 percent of B2B payments in 2013 and fell to 13 percent in 2024, according to an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Yet, the estimated value of checks written for B2B payments has barely changed, falling from $15.4 trillion in 2015 to $15 trillion in 2025, while electronic payments have charted significant growth.

The value of B2B ACH payments nearly doubled, from $36 trillion in 2015 to $70 trillion in 2024. The value of credit and debit cards used for B2B transactions nearly doubled, although the share of payments made by card remains small. The value of credit card payments, for example, grew from $900 trillion in 2015 to $1.6 trillion in 2024.

The value of B2B payments made using wire transfer systems increased significantly, from $820 trillion in 2015 to $1 quadrillion in 2024.

Cost a sticking point

Cost is a major factor in the selection of payment methods used for B2B transactions. For check, ACH and wire transfers the cost is the same for both senders and receivers. Among these payment methods, ACH is the least expensive, with a median fee of 25 cents to 50 cents per transaction. With a median cost of $7, checks are the most expensive payment method.

The share of debit card payments for B2B transactions increased slightly from 13 percent to 17 percent over the past decade, while the share of credit card and wire transfer payments barely changed, at nearly 30 percent and 2 percent, respectively.

The median cost of credit and debit card payments can be quite substantial for large-dollar B2B payments, leading businesses to use wire transfers for their very large payments, the Kansas City Fed wrote.

Despite the availability of less expensive electronic methods, the Association for Financial Professionals reported that 91 percent of businesses were still writing checks for at least some payments in 2024. One year later, however, that share declined, albeit slightly, to 87 percent.

Notice to readers: These are archived articles. Contact information, links and other details may be out of date. We regret any inconvenience.