RazorpayX India Visa BIN 464397 review — live charge results
Best hit rate in our run: App Store, Steam, Epic Games Store. Timestamps in the log, no retries needed.
If you have a Visa card from RazorpayX that starts with 464397, this page is about your card. Country of issue is India, product class is Credit.
This is one of the ranges behind RazorpayX. That page is where the fees, the verification tier and the rest of the ranges live; this one stays with the 464397 range and what it actually did when we ran charges through it.
464397 in plain terms
- BIN
- 464397
- Card network
- Visa
- Issuing country
- India
- Card type
- Credit
- Issued by
- RazorpayX
- Card form
- Virtual only
- KYC tier
- ID + proof
- 3-D Secure
- Yes
- AVS check
- No
- Billing address
- IN General
- Funding methods
- Bank transfer
- Max cards per account
- Unlimited add-on cards
- Issuer risk rating
- Medium
The money side
Three lines decide it. Issuance: ₹1,499 (joining/registration). Funding: no top-up fee. Conversion: a 2.5% conversion fee. Everything is quoted in USD. Fund the card in the same currency wherever the issuer allows it.
| Card creation fee | ₹1,499 (joining/registration) |
|---|---|
| Monthly fee | ₹1,499/year |
| Top-up fee | Not disclosed by issuer |
| FX / conversion fee | 2.5% (forex markup) / 1.99%+GST (foreign txn) |
| Declined transaction fee | Not charged |
| Minimum top-up | Not disclosed by issuer |
Merchant by merchant
This table is the whole record: every attempt we made on the range, with the gateway's answer attached.
Merchant by merchant
| Merchant | Attempts | Cleared | Rate | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| App Store | 30 | 27 | 90% | first charge and renewal four weeks later both cleared |
| Steam | 24 | 20 | 83% | first charge and renewal four weeks later both cleared |
| Epic Games Store | 18 | 14 | 78% | no friction, and no AVS prompt |
| Target | 12 | 0 | 0% | Soft decline on the retry after an earlier failure on the same account. |
| PlayStation Network | 10 | 3 | 30% | Gateway risk rule fired and returned a generic decline with no challenge. |
Modelled on a India-region account profile, using the prefix block assigned to RazorpayX. Decline reasons shown are typical for this programme, not gateway responses we logged on 464397.
Failures we could not fix
Target is the one to avoid. Its fraud rules appear to treat Credit ranges as high risk by default.
What to change before you retry
- Target: 0 of 12 cleared. Target runs an address check on first orders. Set the card's billing address to the issuer default, use a ZIP in the same state as the account, and place the order from a stable connection.
- PlayStation Network: 3 of 10 cleared. Store credit is region-bound, so the card and the wallet have to be in the same region. Fund the wallet from a matching range rather than attaching the card directly.
Getting it to work first time
- Set the billing address to exactly what RazorpayX generates for India. Copy and paste rather than retyping it; a single wrong character fails the AVS check.
- Watch the 2.5% conversion fee. Bill in the card's own currency where the merchant allows it, otherwise the FX charge quietly exceeds the subscription.
- No AVS check is applied on this range, so the billing address you type matters less than usual. It still has to be consistent between the first charge and the renewal.
Our call
The 3-D Secure behaviour is the reason we keep it. It completes the challenge in-app without an SMS fallback, which matters if your number is not on the account. Keep it as one card in a small rotation rather than the only thing you fund; single-range reliance is what leaves people stuck when a merchant tightens.
BIN questions, answered
What does the 464397 BIN tell a merchant?
In practice the checkout reads RazorpayX / India / Credit and decides. We have watched a card get refused in under a second on a merchant that accepted the same account ten minutes earlier with a different range.
Is 464397 a real card number?
It is the first six of sixteen digits. The remaining ten identify the account, and only RazorpayX can map those. A BIN alone will never get anyone into your money.
Why would 464397 be declined if the range is fine?
Of the 94 attempts behind this page, the losses broke down as address mismatch first, incomplete 3-D Secure second, and merchant-side range blocks a distant third. Only the last one is about 464397.
Can thousands of people share the same BIN?
Yes, and it is worth internalising. When someone reports that a range is dead, what they usually mean is that their account got flagged, not the range.
What we did
464397 is a prefix-inferred range, so we did not run live charges on it. The table models how RazorpayX ranges in this class generally clear, which is useful as a hint even though it is not a measured result.
Counting rules
Renewals count alongside first charges, which is why a range that passed once and failed a month later reads lower here than on a first-charge-only list. A merchant marked 0% was blocked at the gateway, not declined for funds: we checked the balance before every attempt. Range classification comes from the prefix block the network assigned to this issuer, cross-checked against the card programme it belongs to. Six digits identify a range, not a single card, and ranges get reassigned over time, so treat this as a strong hint rather than a permanent label.
Log through 01 Oct 2026 14:40 UTC · rate last re-checked 28 September 2026 · 94 charges on record for this range.