Explainer
ChargebacksVisa VAMP: Thresholds, the Ratio Formula and What Acquirers Do Next
How the Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program counts fraud reports and disputes, where the lines sit for acquirers and merchants in each region, and why your acquirer moves long before Visa does.
- By the OpenGate underwriting desk
- Updated
- 14 min read
Visa VAMP, the Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program, is Visa’s global program for monitoring fraud and disputes on card-not-present payments. It adds fraud reports and disputes, divides by settled transactions, and compares the result with thresholds for each acquirer’s portfolio and each merchant. As of October 2026, a merchant in the US, Canada, the EU or Asia-Pacific is Excessive at 1.5 percent with 1,500 cases in a month. This guide covers the formula, the thresholds and what your acquirer does first.
In this guide
What Visa VAMP replaced and what it measures
VAMP replaced the Visa Dispute Monitoring Program (VDMP) and the Visa Fraud Monitoring Program (VFMP) with one ratio that counts fraud and disputes together. Visa’s announcement describes it as five fraud and dispute programs consolidated into a single acquirer program. It took effect on 1 April 2025, with an advisory period that ran until 30 September 2025. The current thresholds date from 1 June 2025, with one further cut for merchants on 1 April 2026. Authenticated payments weigh differently in a ratio, a point covered in 3D Secure payment gateway.
Three things changed for a merchant who knew the old programs:
- Fraud reports sit in the same numerator as disputes, so a clean chargeback ratio no longer proves a clean file.
- The acquirer is measured first. Visa looks at the whole portfolio before it looks at any single merchant.
- The program covers card-not-present transactions only, domestic and cross-border. In-store volume cannot dilute an online ratio.
VAMP also monitors enumeration, the card-testing attacks that fire thousands of authorization attempts at a checkout. That measure has its own line in the threshold table. Disputes that follow a program rather than a claim, such as Visa 10.5, are listed in the chargeback reason codes guide.
VAMP is the main Visa program a merchant meets, and other programs sit next to it. Visa’s public rules, April 2026 edition, add a Merchant Elevated Risk Program for the Asia-Pacific region. Stripe’s documentation describes it, as of October 2026, as judging each business individually on signals whose thresholds Visa does not publish. This guide covers VAMP only.
How Visa calculates the VAMP ratio
The VAMP ratio is the number of fraud reports plus the number of disputes, divided by the number of settled transactions, all counted on card-not-present Visa payments in one calendar month. Visa’s fact sheet writes it with Visa’s own record names:
VAMP ratio = (TC40 fraud reports + TC15 disputes) ÷ TC05 settled transactions
- A TC40 is the fraud report an issuer sends Visa when a cardholder says a payment was fraudulent. It exists whether or not a dispute follows.
- A TC15 is a dispute, fraud-coded or otherwise: the record that moves the money back.
- A TC05 is a settled sale.
The ratio is count-based. A disputed USD 9 rebill weighs as much as a disputed USD 900 order, which is why subscription chargebacks move the ratio so fast.
The fact sheet names two exclusions, both “contingent on the timing of the data extract”: disputes resolved through pre-dispute solutions, and fraud reports that qualified for Compelling Evidence 3.0. Stripe’s public documentation of the program, one of the more detailed descriptions an acquirer publishes, adds four points the fact sheet leaves out:
- A fraudulent payment that produces both a fraud report and a dispute is counted twice.
- A case belongs to the month Visa receives it, whatever the date of the original sale.
- Outcomes are ignored. A dispute you win stays in the count.
- Issuers report fraud on captured payments even after you refund them. An authorization you reverse before capture is not reported.
A worked example
Take an online merchant with these Visa figures for one month. The numbers are illustrative.
| Line | Count |
|---|---|
| Settled card-not-present transactions | 40,000 |
| Fraud reports (TC40) | 300 |
| Disputes received (TC15) | 420 |
| Of which resolved pre-dispute and excluded | 60 |
Numerator: 300 + (420 - 60) = 660. Ratio: 660 ÷ 40,000 = 1.65 percent, or 165 basis points.
The same merchant, dividing chargebacks by transactions the old way, sees 360 ÷ 40,000 = 0.9 percent and believes the file is healthy. The gap comes from the 300 fraud reports, most of which describe payments that also sit among the disputes.
Visa does not identify this merchant as Excessive, because the merchant test needs both the ratio and a minimum of 1,500 cases, and this file has 660. Now grow the business to 100,000 transactions at the same rates: 750 fraud reports and 900 counted disputes make 1,650 cases, still at 1.65 percent. The merchant crosses both lines, and the only thing that changed is its size.
VAMP thresholds as of October 2026
Visa sets one pair of thresholds for acquirers and one level for merchants, and the merchant line depends on the region. The table follows Visa’s fact sheet, in the edition that was online in October 2026.
| Who | Level | VAMP ratio | Monthly minimum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acquirer portfolio | Above Standard | 50 bps (0.5 percent) or more | 1,500 fraud reports and disputes. CEMEA: 150 and USD 75,000 |
| Acquirer portfolio | Excessive | 70 bps (0.7 percent) or more | Same as above |
| Merchant in the US, Canada, the EU or Asia-Pacific | Excessive | 150 bps (1.5 percent) or more since 1 April 2026. 220 bps before | 1,500 fraud reports and disputes |
| Merchant in Latin America and the Caribbean | Excessive | 150 bps or more | 1,500 fraud reports and disputes |
| Merchant in CEMEA | Excessive | 220 bps (2.2 percent) or more | 150 fraud reports and disputes, and USD 75,000 |
| Enumeration | Enumeration threshold | 2,000 bps (20 percent) of authorization attempts enumerated | 300,000 enumerated attempts |
CEMEA is Visa’s region for Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The fact sheet leaves Brazil, Chile and India aside and says their programs would be announced later.
Two details decide how the table applies to you.
The merchant thresholds are the fallback. The fact sheet applies them when the acquirer itself is neither Above Standard nor Excessive. Once the portfolio is identified, the lines that reach you are the acquirer’s 50 and 70 basis points. Stripe’s documentation, for example, lists a second level for its merchants at a ratio of 0.5 percent, above which Visa may assess fees. That is a third of the 1.5 percent most headlines quote.
The minimum count shields a small merchant from Visa’s merchant test and from nothing else. A shop with 200 cases a month cannot be an Excessive merchant in the US, whatever its ratio. Its acquirer still carries those 200 cases in a portfolio measured at 0.5 percent.
What happens above a threshold
An identified acquirer or merchant must put risk controls in place, and enforcement fees follow. Visa’s public fact sheet states the first and says nothing about the second. The figures below are what acquirers report in their own documentation, and what an article published by the Merchant Risk Council in April 2026 reports, as of October 2026. Your acquirer agreement is the place to confirm them. Some categories also sit under the Visa Integrity Risk Program, where the acquirer carries extra duties whatever your ratio is.
- USD 8 per counted fraud report and dispute for a merchant identified as Excessive.
- At acquirer level, USD 4 per case when the portfolio is Above Standard and USD 8 when it is Excessive.
- A grace period of three months for a first identification within a rolling 12 months.
- No fee for the enumeration measure, according to Stripe’s documentation.
Visa bills the acquirer. The acquirer decides what it passes on, and merchant agreements commonly let it pass on everything. For the merchant in the example, grown to 1,650 cases, the reported fee comes to 1,650 × USD 8 = USD 13,200 for that month, before any change to the reserve. Your own contract adds a chargeback fee per case on top.
What your acquirer does before Visa acts
Your acquirer applies its own limits, set far below Visa’s merchant line, because a few hot merchants can carry a whole portfolio past 50 basis points. In the example, one merchant at 165 basis points adds 660 cases to the acquirer’s numerator while being invisible to Visa’s merchant test. The acquirer manages that file early, for its own protection.
The sequence varies in detail and rarely in order:
- A notice stating your ratio as the acquirer computes it, with a request for a written remediation plan and dates.
- Conditions on the account: enrollment in pre-dispute tools, authentication on the segments that produce fraud reports, sometimes a cap on monthly volume.
- A higher reserve, since the acquirer now prices the risk of scheme fees and of losing you. The mechanics are in the rolling reserve guide.
- Pass-through of any scheme fee, plus the acquirer’s own monitoring fee where the agreement provides for one.
- Termination if the ratio does not come down, with a possible entry in the terminated merchant file described in the MATCH guide.
Ask for step 1 in numbers. Many merchants have never seen their TC40 count, because issuers send fraud reports to Visa and the acquirer, and a chargeback report does not show them. Half of the numerator may be missing from the reports you read every month.
What lowers a VAMP ratio and what does not
Two things lower the ratio: fewer fraud reports, and fewer disputes that reach Visa as filed. Everything else moves money without moving the count.
| Action | Effect on the VAMP count |
|---|---|
| Refund before the cardholder contacts the bank | No dispute and no fraud report, so nothing to count |
| Reverse a suspicious authorization before capture | No fraud report |
| Refund through a pre-dispute tool such as Verifi RDR or CDRN | The dispute is excluded. A fraud report filed on the same payment still counts |
| Qualify a fraud claim under Compelling Evidence 3.0 | The fraud report is excluded |
| Authenticate the payment with 3DS2 | Fraud liability moves to the issuer, which removes most fraud disputes. The issuer can still file the fraud report |
| Win the dispute in representment | None. The dispute stays in the count |
| Refund after the dispute is filed | None |
The pre-dispute tools are sold as chargeback alerts, and each one has its own coverage and price. Claims filed by the real cardholder are friendly fraud, where the evidence rules decide what you can fight. For the fraud side, the 3DS2 guide explains which segments to challenge. The prevention work that applies to every scheme is in the chargeback ratio playbook.
One tactic fails every time: spreading volume over several merchant IDs to stay under 1,500 cases. The acquirer’s portfolio ratio adds all of them back together, and acquirers treat the practice as evasion of the program. Stripe’s published list of prohibited uses, for one, names it in those words. An underwriter who finds the pattern in a new application reads it the same way.
How Mastercard’s program differs
Mastercard runs a separate Excessive Chargeback Program with a different formula, so one month of trading produces two different ratios. Its public Security Rules and Procedures, in the edition of 4 August 2026, define the measure in basis points: the chargebacks a merchant receives in a calendar month, divided by its Mastercard transactions of the preceding month. Fraud reports are absent from that numerator.
| Visa VAMP | Mastercard Excessive Chargeback Program | |
|---|---|---|
| Numerator | Fraud reports plus disputes | Chargebacks |
| Denominator | Settled transactions of the same month | Transactions of the previous month |
| Merchant levels | Excessive | Excessive Chargeback Merchant, High Excessive Chargeback Merchant |
| Transactions covered | Card-not-present | All types, as acquirers describe it |
The public manual names the two levels and refers to another Mastercard manual for the figures. Acquirers publish them: Stripe’s documentation, as of October 2026, gives 100 to 299 chargebacks with a ratio of 1.5 to 2.99 percent for an Excessive Chargeback Merchant, and 300 or more chargebacks with 3 percent for the High level. Because the denominator is the previous month, a sharp drop in sales shows up as a spike one month later, when chargebacks from the busy period land on the smaller base.
This comparison has an end date. Dispute-management vendors reported in mid-2026 that Mastercard had told acquirers it would fold these categories into a new Global Merchant Audit Program on 1 April 2027, with a measure that adds fraud reports to chargebacks. In Mastercard’s public manual of 4 August 2026, the section that carries that program’s name says only that it is suspended until further notice, so ask your acquirer what will apply to you from that date.
What to bring if your VAMP ratio is the problem
Bring the ratio the way Visa computes it, month by month. Ask your current acquirer for six months of settled card-not-present Visa transactions, TC40 fraud reports, disputes by condition code and pre-dispute resolutions. Add any notice you received and the remediation plan you wrote. An underwriter reads cause and trend from that table. A chargeback report alone hides the fraud reports, and the first reply will ask for them.
A new account does not erase those months. The next acquirer reads the same history and works under the same 50 basis point limit. What a move can change is the tooling. OpenGate’s dispute toolkit lists ratio tracking against Visa and Mastercard thresholds, alert feeds from the schemes and 3DS2 routing, and the written offer states which of them apply to your file, next to the reserve. If your current setup lacks them, send your ratio history with an application. An underwriter reads the numbers and replies within 1 business day: an offer with its reserve, the documents still needed, or a no and the reason for it. You pay nothing for that reading.