Payment is not just a payment
An interactive infographic comparing credit card, debit card, and account-to-account payments. A Mobey Forum Payment Expert Group publication.
An interactive infographic comparing credit card, debit card, and account-to-account payments. A Mobey Forum Payment Expert Group publication.
Mobey Forum's Payment Expert Group has built this interactive infographic to provide a clear, practical comparison of card-based and account-to-account (A2A) payments — illustrating the benefits, challenges, and operational characteristics of each.
It highlights where commonalities and differences exist along the payment process, and how selecting a particular rail affects the payment life cycle and shifts responsibilities. Step by step, you can see how the two models differ in controls, timing, user experience, and post-transaction options such as refunds, chargebacks, or reversals — and where they look much the same.
Card payments are typically made using issued debit or credit cards and global or domestic card schemes. Card schemes have mature infrastructures and processes to manage various use cases, enabling frictionless payment experiences.
A2A payments are transfers of funds authorised to move directly from the payer's account to the payee's account — without intermediaries defined by card schemes. Merchants accept funds directly into their bank accounts. Payment instructions are shared by the merchant to the payer over varied data transfer methods like NFC, QR codes or Bluetooth. Direct bank-to-bank movement, available 24/7/365, with instant confirmation to the payee.
Does the reconfiguration of intermediaries really lead to a better payment system — or simply shift the value elsewhere?
What actual gaps are there between card and A2A rails?
How are the business models evolving as banks and fintechs take over the roles traditionally held by acquirers and card schemes?
Each payment option has its own “line”. Every sub-process is a “station”. The overall process is divided into four “zones”.
Most of the processes are very similar for both card payments and A2A payments, but some key differences exist between sub-processes, leading to differing consequences. Four themes stand out.
Comparing the rails alone doesn't consider the user experience and trust model. Debit and credit have existed for a long time — they have mature standardisation and operating rules, cover almost all process steps, and provide reliable options. A2A typically simplifies many steps, such as eliminating provisioning and certification related to the card concept, and lacks structured merchant onboarding and scheme roles.
Cards differ most from A2A in disputes and exception handling, acceptance on various channels, and the concept of pull vs. push payments. Cards have mature dispute frameworks, scheme-backed exceptions, and chargeback processes enabling robust consumer protection. A2A handles disputes mainly through account-holding institutions, with fewer standardised exception mechanisms and reliance on emerging schemes or bilateral rules. Most typical use cases, like POS and e-commerce, still need to be made available and extended to users when A2A is applied.
Cards have mature models with clear revenue streams based on subscription fees, interchange, and scheme fees. A2A has a fragmented ecosystem with less standardised business models, often relying on cross-selling or being free for consumers in a cost-efficient approach. Some of the reasons for the rise of A2A are understood to be cost efficiency, faster settlement, and regulatory and policy support.
As A2A schemes emerge rapidly and gain traction, it's interesting to see whether A2A can deliver on its promise of greater cost-effectiveness while enabling similar user protection and regional/global interoperability across various payment channels. Card schemes also have a lot to learn from A2A — and can offer services such as split payments, P2P, and instant liquidity for merchants.
Two contributions from Mobey Forum members — one from a European A2A scheme operator (Bizum), one from a card-scheme perspective (BankAxept) — sharing how they see the differences between card and A2A payments in practice.
A2A payments differ fundamentally from card payments — they are payer-initiated "push" payments that move directly between bank accounts without intermediaries holding funds.
The Bizum case study argues that A2A payments differ fundamentally from card payments because they are payer-initiated "push" payments that move directly between bank accounts without intermediaries holding funds. Bizum relies on banks' authentication and PSD2 security frameworks and states that its fraud rates are lower than those for card fraud in Spain.
A core message is that instant payment rails alone are insufficient for merchant payments. Since SCT Inst was designed for simple credit transfers, solutions like Bizum must add merchant-focused capabilities such as refunds, dispute management, reversals, and operational standards.
The case study positions A2A as strategically important for European payment sovereignty because the infrastructure is fully European, unlike card schemes that depend partly on non-European networks. Banks benefit from reduced reliance on international card schemes, stronger customer loyalty, and increased engagement with banking apps. Users gain fast, secure, low-friction payments integrated directly into their banking apps, while merchants benefit from higher conversion rates, instant settlement, lower fraud, and improved checkout resilience.
However, the case study also acknowledges important limitations versus cards. Native A2A rails that, in Bizum's case, rely on the PSD2/3/R regulatory framework for access were originally not designed for fast-paced, low-latency scenarios like the physical POS. Partly due to these origins, they still lack features such as merchant-initiated transactions, preauthorizations, offline functionality, and built-in dispute management. Many card-like capabilities, therefore, still require additional overlay solutions and regulatory development.
Cards succeed primarily because they solve coordination at scale, while A2A's future success depends on how effectively it can combine efficiency with similarly robust governance and user protections.
The document compares card payments and account-to-account (A2A) payments, arguing that cards are a highly standardised, scheme-driven model, while European A2A payments remain a diverse and evolving ecosystem. Card schemes provide integrated governance, rules, dispute handling, operational resilience, and incentives, whereas A2A solutions often need to rebuild many of these capabilities through overlays and agreements.
Card payments are described as a coordinated multi-party system involving issuers, acquirers, schemes, merchants, and cardholders. Their strength lies in a mature lifecycle of authorisation, clearing, and settlement combined with embedded fraud controls, dispute management, and global interoperability. The paper stresses that much of the value of cards comes not from payment execution itself, but from the extensive coordination framework operating behind the scenes.
In contrast, A2A payments are presented as more modular and composable. Different governance models coexist, including open banking access, instant payment rails, and scheme-like overlays. Outcomes such as user experience, fraud handling, resilience, and acceptance therefore vary significantly between implementations.
The document highlights that cards perform particularly well in complex commerce scenarios requiring lifecycle management over time, such as hotels, travel, car rentals, remote e-commerce, and cross-border payments. Features like pre-authorisations, chargebacks, buyer protections, offline acceptance, and financing are deeply integrated into card systems.
At the same time, the paper acknowledges advantages of A2A models. By reusing existing bank account infrastructure and reducing intermediaries, A2A can lower costs, enable faster settlement, and support more flexible innovation. However, achieving card-like outcomes requires rebuilding many scheme-like services such as guarantees, dispute frameworks, and operational coordination.
The Payment Expert Group members collaborated closely to gather the information and data that form the basis of this infographic. Thank you for your contributions. Special thanks to Bizum and BankAxept for sharing real case studies demonstrating the differences between A2A and card payments, outlining existing challenges, and highlighting potential benefits.