Insights that cut through the noise

Join the hundreds of other merchants who subscribe to the Primer newsletter and get practical payment strategies, real-world merchant stories, and fresh insights straight from the Primer team to your inbox.

Network tokens vs PAN: How merchants can optimize today while preparing for tomorrow

6 min read

Mastercard wants the payments world to be tokenized by 2030, while Visa has been equally vocal in pushing token adoption. They are right to push in that direction. Network tokens are more secure, reduce fraud, and often deliver better approval rates. 

Visa reports up to a 4.6% uplift on approvals, while Mastercard cites a 2.1% increase. Tokens also reduce fraud by as much as 26% and prevent declines from expired cards.

But despite the networks’ direction of travel, the ecosystem isn’t fully there. While every issuer, acquirer, or region consistently supports network tokens, approval performance can still vary. We’ve seen this firsthand in our own experiments, where Primary Account Number (PAN) retries are still recovering transactions that tokens could not.

Uncovering network tokenization performance gaps 

We’ve had lots of conversations over recent months with merchants exploring network tokens. While network tokens have consistently improved authorization rates and reduced processing costs, our experiments also revealed cases where PAN retries remained relevant for recovering additional transactions.

That gap isn’t unusual. Payments performance depends on many moving parts: issuer readiness, regional adoption, processor routing. For example, we’ve seen payments declined for ‘insufficient funds’ only to be approved by another PSP seconds later. 

These differences in performance are why fallbacks and retries can be so powerful. And it’s exactly why Primer exists. Our role is to give our merchants the infrastructure to test, route, and optimize intelligently, turning this complexity into an opportunity to recover revenue. 

Building a safety net with PAN retries

That’s why we built a safety net: if a network-tokenized payment fails for specific reasons, automatically retry the transaction with the PAN. This fallback gives merchants cover during the transition, capturing revenue that would otherwise be lost, while still moving forward with tokenization.

And the impact has been significant.

In some cases, falling back to PAN has recovered up to 9% of retried transactions. Even more importantly, we’re providing a diagnostic lens into where tokenization is working well and where issuers or markets are lagging.

This gives merchants the ability to adopt network tokens without fearing unnecessary revenue loss. They can move forward knowing there’s cover in place and clear insight into how performance evolves over time.

PAN retries in practice

We’ve seen this dynamic play out with one of our merchants where network tokens were performing strongly overall. But a closer look revealed one specific MID where PAN was consistently outperforming tokens.

Rather than treating this as a failure of tokenization, we used it as a signal. With support from Primer’s optimization team, this merchant introduced a targeted fallback to PAN for that MID only. The result was significant recovery, without rolling back network token adoption elsewhere.

This is the kind of nuance merchants miss without visibility into issuer behavior, processor routing, and MID-level performance. Network tokens remain the default, but selective PAN fallbacks allow merchants to capture revenue while the ecosystem continues to mature.

To learn more about how Dabble uses Primer’s payment infrastructure across processors and payment methods, you can read their full customer story here.

What merchants need to consider

Network tokens bring clear advantages: lower costs through network incentives, reduced fraud, and fewer lifecycle issues. But PANs can still outperform tokens in some scenarios, and the reality today is uneven across issuers and regions.

From our experiments, three dynamics stand out that every merchant should watch:

  • Approval uplifts vary. The 2–5% gains cited by networks depend heavily on issuer and market. PAN fallbacks can capture revenue where tokens underperform.
  • Issuer readiness is uneven. Some issuers are fully optimized for tokens, others are still catching up. PAN retries act as a diagnostic tool to identify where gaps exist.
  • Emerging markets lag. Frequent card reissuance and slower lifecycle updates make PANs a useful safety net until tokenization matures.

The real challenge isn’t choosing between network tokens and PANs, it’s knowing when each delivers better results, and how to balance cost against performance. That requires visibility into network incentives, issuer behavior, and processor routing.

Primer gives merchants that visibility. By connecting every processor and payment method in one place, we enable merchants to see how issuers handle tokens versus PANs, and adapt their flows in real time to maximize revenue.

From short-term gains to long-term growth

Experimentation beats assumption. Merchants who test, measure, and optimize in the grey areas are the ones who find new revenue streams.

At Primer, we help leading businesses uncover and act on these short-term opportunities while preparing for the long-term future of tokenization.

Curious how much hidden revenue PAN retries and network token optimization could unlock for you? Book a call and we’ll show you where hidden revenue opportunities lie.

Want to learn more KEY FACTS?

To download, please fill in your email

Stay up to date

Subscribe to get the freshest payment insights.