Visa VAMP thresholds for 2026, and what they mean for Shopify merchants
Two notes before the detail. Search results on this topic are unusually stale, and many still quote the old 2.2% line, so go to the source. Everything here comes from Visa's Acquirer Monitoring Program fact sheet on corporate.visa.com, the 2025 edition, which I read on July 20, 2026. Check for a newer one before you act on any figure.
What is the Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program?
VAMP is a consolidation. Visa folded the old Visa Fraud Monitoring Program and Visa Dispute Monitoring Program into a single global program, with the updated thresholds effective from June 1, 2025.
The "A" is the part merchants miss. The program measures acquirers, not stores directly. Visa flags an acquirer's whole portfolio, and the acquirer manages that risk by managing the merchants inside it. Nothing in VAMP gives Visa a direct line to your Shopify admin. The pressure reaches you as an email from your payment provider.
Visa runs the calculation monthly and requires anyone over threshold to put risk-mitigation controls in place. Separate programs for Brazil, Chile, and India are noted as coming later.
What is the VAMP ratio, and how is it calculated?
One count-based ratio:
VAMP ratio = (TC40 fraud reports + TC15 disputes) / TC05 settled transactions.
Two things follow from that definition, and both trip people up.
First, fraud and non-fraud disputes now sit in the same numerator. Under the old programs they were tracked separately. That structural change is why a ratio can come out higher than a merchant expects.
Second, it is a count, not a dollar figure. A dollar-weighted version of your own numbers will look better than the one your acquirer is watching, because a few large clean transactions do not dilute a count the way they dilute a sum. Calculate yours the way Visa does: counts, and card-not-present settled transactions as the denominator.
What are the 2026 VAMP thresholds?
The merchant line depends on region, and the acquirer lines are tighter than the merchant one.
| Level | Threshold | Applies to |
|---|---|---|
| Merchant, excessive | 150 bps (1.5%) | AP, Canada, EU, US, LAC |
| Merchant, excessive | 220 bps (2.2%) | CEMEA |
| Acquirer, above standard | 50 bps (0.5%) | All portfolios |
| Acquirer, excessive | 70 bps (0.7%) | All portfolios |
The merchant threshold dropped to 150 bps in AP, Canada, EU, and the US on April 1, 2026, per the fact sheet's footnote. LAC is listed at 150; CEMEA at 220.
There is also an entry gate. The ratio does not apply until you clear a minimum monthly volume of fraud plus disputes.
| Region | Entry gate |
|---|---|
| AP, Canada, EU, US, LAC | 1,500 per month |
| CEMEA | 150 per month, plus a USD 75,000 amount threshold |
The acquirer numbers, 50 and 70 bps, are the ones to keep in mind. They are roughly half the merchant line, which is exactly why a store running near 150 becomes a problem its acquirer has to act on.
What happens if you cross the threshold?
It arrives through your acquirer, not from Visa. At 70 bps for excessive at the portfolio level, a single merchant sitting at 150 is drag the acquirer has to remove. In practice that means tighter processing limits, reserve requirements, a remediation plan, or offboarding.
I am deliberately not putting a per-dispute penalty figure here. Numbers in that range circulate on competitor blogs, but I could not find one in the fact sheet I read, so I am not going to state it as fact. Ask your acquirer what they actually charge; the specific number depends on your agreement with them, not on a headline.
The practical first move on Shopify is unglamorous. Find out who your acquirer actually is, because with Shopify Payments it is not obvious from the admin. Then ask them, in writing, three things: what ratio they calculate for you, over what window, and what their own internal action threshold is. Acquirers commonly set one below Visa's line. Reconcile their number against yours.
Which disputes count, and how to keep your ratio down
This is the part that changes what you should actually do, and it is where most coverage stops short.
The fact sheet lists two exclusions from the ratio. It excludes disputes resolved through pre-dispute solutions, contingent on the timing of the data extract, and it excludes TC40 fraud that qualifies for Compelling Evidence 3.0, on the same timing caveat.
Now read that list for what is missing.
That is the whole argument in winning a chargeback does not fix your dispute ratio, and Visa's own exclusion list is the cleanest evidence for it. Representment is a revenue lever. It is not a ratio lever.
What is excluded is resolution before a chargeback is filed. When a cardholder opens a dispute with their bank, the networks can push an early signal in the window before it becomes a formal chargeback, through Ethoca, Visa RDR, and CDRN. Refund inside that window and the dispute can resolve without a chargeback entering the count. Deflecting a dispute before it is filed is what Redo built Alerts to do, and it exists precisely because representment does not move this number.
The CE 3.0 exclusion is worth a separate look if you sell to repeat customers, since qualifying fraud reports leave the numerator too.
The exclusions are the instructions. Only two things move the numerator once an order has gone wrong: stopping the dispute from being filed, and having it resolved before filing. Everything else, including a strong win rate, leaves the count where it was.
That points at prevention and deflection rather than recovery. But be honest about the limits before you lean on it.
Deflection is neither free nor universal. Alert coverage depends on the networks you are enrolled with, the issuer, and whether the signal lands inside the window. Some disputes are filed before anything reaches you. Refunding on an alert also means refunding customers who would never have escalated, so on low-value orders the cost of deflecting can exceed the fee you avoided.
And prevention is slow to show up. A ratio is a trailing monthly measure, so work you do in July lands in your August and September numbers. If you are already near the line, plan on a quarter, not a week.
Frequently asked questions
What is the VAMP threshold for merchants in 2026?
150 basis points, or 1.5%, in the AP, Canada, EU, US, and LAC regions as of April 1, 2026. CEMEA remains at 220 basis points (2.2%). The threshold only applies once a merchant clears 1,500 fraud-plus-disputes in a month. These figures are from Visa's Acquirer Monitoring Program fact sheet; confirm against the current edition before relying on them.
How is the VAMP ratio calculated?
It is the count of fraud reports (TC40) plus disputes (TC15), divided by the count of settled transactions (TC05). It is count-based rather than dollar-weighted, and measured on card-not-present transactions.
Does winning a chargeback lower your VAMP ratio?
No. A dispute counts from the moment it is filed. Visa's exclusions cover disputes resolved through pre-dispute solutions and fraud that qualifies for Compelling Evidence 3.0, not disputes that were fought and won. Representment recovers the money but leaves the ratio entry in place.
Can a low chargeback rate still put you at risk?
Yes, through your acquirer. Acquirer portfolios are flagged at 50 basis points (above standard) and 70 (excessive), tighter than the merchant line, so a merchant running near 150 is a problem the acquirer manages through limits, reserves, remediation, or offboarding, even if that merchant is under its own threshold.
The calculation to run this month
Take last month's card-not-present settled transaction count as your denominator. Take your fraud reports plus disputes as your numerator. Divide, and express it in basis points.
Then run it for each of the previous five months and look at the slope, not the level. A single month under 150 tells you nothing. Six months trending toward it tells you what your next two quarters look like, and gives you time to do something other than react.