The 2026 Visa VAMP threshold has changed, and Mastercard’s Excessive Chargeback Program (ECP) measures performance differently. Merchants operating across both card networks need to understand what each ratio counts, which transactions form its denominator, and when the data is measured. A figure that looks acceptable under one scheme does not necessarily mean the same business is below the other scheme’s thresholds.
Key takeaways
- Visa VAMP combines issuer-reported fraud and disputes in a same-month ratio; it is not a chargeback-only measure.
- In Asia Pacific, Canada, the EU and the US, Visa’s Excessive Merchant threshold is 1.50% from 1 April 2026, alongside a minimum monthly event count.
- Mastercard ECP has two tiers, ECM and HECM, with both chargeback-count and ratio conditions.
- Mastercard’s ratio compares current-month chargebacks with the previous month’s transaction count; it is not a comparison with the previous month’s dollar sales.
- Scheme thresholds are not the only relevant limits. Merchants should also confirm their acquirer’s monitoring and escalation procedures.
What is Visa VAMP?
Visa’s Acquirer Monitoring Program (VAMP) consolidated and replaced the Visa Dispute Monitoring Program (VDMP) and Visa Fraud Monitoring Program (VFMP). Under the program, Visa assesses card-not-present activity using a combined fraud-and-dispute ratio.
The VAMP ratio is calculated as:
TC40 fraud reports + TC15 disputes ÷ TC05 settled transactions
The numerator therefore includes issuer-reported fraud (TC40) as well as disputes (TC15). A merchant looking only at chargebacks visible in its own systems may not be looking at the full numerator. Visa’s 2025 fact sheet notes that certain disputes resolved through pre-dispute solutions and qualifying TC40 fraud may be excluded, depending on the applicable criteria and data-extract timing. Visa’s VAMP fact sheet (2025) provides the program formula and qualification details.
The Visa VAMP threshold for 2026
For merchants in Asia Pacific, Canada, the EU and the US, Visa reduced the Excessive Merchant threshold from 2.20% to 1.50% (150 basis points) effective 1 April 2026. In those regions, merchants must also meet the monthly minimum of 1,500 combined fraud and dispute events. Both conditions matter: a ratio at or above the threshold and the applicable event-count minimum. These figures and the effective date are set out in Visa’s 2025 fact sheet.
The rules differ by region. The same fact sheet lists a 2.20% threshold for CEMEA, alongside a different event-count and amount condition. Merchants should therefore confirm the regional rules that apply to their processing rather than treating 1.50% as a global VAMP threshold.
A simple illustration: 1,500 qualifying fraud and dispute events against 100,000 settled transactions equals 1.50%. This is arithmetic to explain the ratio, not a separate Visa rule or prediction of how a particular merchant will be assessed.
How Mastercard ECP differs
Mastercard’s Acquirer Chargeback Monitoring Program includes the Excessive Chargeback Program (ECP), which has two merchant tiers:
| Mastercard ECP tier | Monthly chargeback count | Ratio |
|---|---|---|
| Excessive Chargeback Merchant (ECM) | 100–299 | 1.50%–2.99% |
| High Excessive Chargeback Merchant (HECM) | 300 or more | 3.00% or higher |
These thresholds require both the chargeback-count and ratio conditions to be met. The figures are reported in Checkout.com’s scheme monitoring documentation and its October 2026 GMAP update. PaymentReview’s September 2026 coverage also summarizes the distinction between the Mastercard tiers and Visa’s combined measure.
The ratio uses current-month chargebacks divided by the preceding month’s sales transaction count, multiplied by 10,000 to express the result in basis points. It is not based on the previous month’s sales value in currency. For example, 150 chargebacks divided by 10,000 transactions in the preceding month equals 1.50%. This is an illustrative calculation based on the formula described in Checkout.com’s documentation.
Why the calculation differences matter
The programs can produce different views of the same merchant’s dispute performance:
- Different numerator: VAMP includes TC40 fraud reports and TC15 disputes. ECP counts chargebacks.
- Different denominator timing: VAMP compares events with settled transactions from the same month. Mastercard compares current-month chargebacks with the preceding month’s transaction count.
- Different entry conditions: VAMP’s 1,500-event minimum applies in several regions; ECP tiers require a minimum chargeback count as well as the relevant ratio.
- Different regional scope: Visa’s thresholds vary by region, and Mastercard’s program rules and availability should be confirmed with the merchant’s acquirer.
Timing can matter particularly for seasonal or rapidly changing businesses. If transaction counts fall from one month to the next, Mastercard’s lagged denominator may make the current ratio look different from a same-month calculation. Under VAMP, by contrast, both the event count and settled-transaction denominator relate to the measured month.
These distinctions are useful for interpreting monitoring data, not a substitute for an acquirer’s own reporting. Ask how the provider maps scheme records to merchant-level reports, when those reports are available, and whether the provider applies additional contractual thresholds or alerts.
What merchants can do with the information
Monitoring should connect to the broader process of understanding why disputes and fraud reports occur. As covered in Payvea’s chargeback management guide for global and high-risk merchants, the causes may include fraud, customer confusion, fulfillment problems or merchant process errors. Those causes call for different operational responses.
A practical review can include:
- Understand the underlying data. Confirm which fraud reports, disputes and transactions are included in each scheme’s calculation and reporting period.
- Segment the results. Review activity by market, product, payment route and transaction type to identify where changes are concentrated.
- Investigate causes rather than chasing a ratio alone. Review customer communication, fulfillment, refund and support processes alongside relevant fraud controls.
- Discuss thresholds and timing with the acquirer. Ask how scheme rules apply to the merchant’s region, structure and processing setup, and what escalation process the provider follows.
- Review the wider payment setup where appropriate. Provider connections, payment routes and operational visibility may be relevant to payment resilience, but they do not guarantee a lower dispute ratio.
For merchants managing multiple providers, Payvea’s guides to smart payment routing, payment cascading and payment failover and acquiring redundancy explain related payment-operations considerations. These tools address routing and continuity questions; they should not be treated as a way to eliminate chargebacks or ensure a particular monitoring outcome.
What to know about Mastercard GMAP
In an October 2026 support update, Checkout.com said Mastercard plans to replace its current fraud and chargeback monitoring programs with the Global Merchant Audit Program (GMAP) from 1 April 2027. The update describes GMAP as bringing together monitoring of combined fraud and dispute activity across acquirer, merchant and sub-merchant levels. This is a planned change, not a change to the ECP thresholds described above for 2026. Merchants should check for current details with their acquirer and Mastercard documentation as the transition approaches.
Frequently asked questions
Is the VAMP ratio the same as a chargeback ratio?
No. VAMP combines TC40 fraud reports and TC15 disputes, then divides by TC05 settled transactions. A chargeback-only measure does not necessarily include the full VAMP numerator.
Does the 1.50% Visa threshold apply worldwide?
No. Visa’s 2025 fact sheet lists regional thresholds. The 1.50% Excessive Merchant threshold effective 1 April 2026 applies to Asia Pacific, Canada, the EU and the US; other regions have different conditions.
Does a merchant enter VAMP as soon as its ratio reaches 1.50%?
Not necessarily. In the regions above, the stated threshold also includes a minimum of 1,500 combined monthly fraud and dispute events. Merchants should confirm how the applicable rules are calculated for their account and region.
How does Mastercard calculate the ECP ratio?
It divides current-month chargebacks by the preceding month’s Mastercard sales transaction count and expresses the result in basis points. It is not a dollar-value sales denominator.
Can a merchant be below one scheme’s threshold but above another’s?
Yes. The schemes use different event definitions, denominators and timing. Each network’s measure needs to be reviewed separately.
Does GMAP replace Mastercard ECP in 2026?
No. Checkout.com’s October 2026 update describes GMAP as planned to replace current Mastercard fraud and chargeback monitoring programs from 1 April 2027. Merchants should confirm transition details with their acquirer.
Build monitoring around the right measure
Visa VAMP and Mastercard ECP are not interchangeable chargeback thresholds. VAMP combines fraud reports and disputes using same-month settled transactions, while Mastercard ECP counts chargebacks against the preceding month’s transaction count. Understanding those differences helps merchants ask better questions of their providers and interpret monitoring reports more accurately.
This article is general educational information, not legal or compliance advice. Scheme rules and provider processes may change; merchants should confirm current requirements with their acquirer or the relevant scheme documentation.
For a discussion about how chargeback requirements fit within a broader payment setup, Discuss Your Chargeback Management Requirements.
