Executive Summary

As of 21 July 2026, Transpacific spot freight remains in a high-rate regime, but the market is no longer moving uniformly upward. The Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) on 17 July stood at 3,080.31 points, with Shanghai–U.S. West Coast at USD 5,721/FEU and Shanghai–U.S. East Coast at USD 8,172/FEU. The West Coast assessment fell sharply week on week, while the East Coast remained broadly stable. This divergence supports the view that the early peak-season surge is beginning to fragment by coast, carrier and service product rather than continuing as a single market-wide rally.

SCFI is particularly useful for Vietnam market analysis because Shanghai, Ningbo, Yantian and Vietnam origins are priced within interconnected Asian carrier networks. Carriers often manage GRIs, PSS, equipment and Transpacific allocations across the same regional capacity pools. The direction of SCFI therefore frequently resembles the movement of ex-Vietnam quotations. However, SCFI is not a Vietnam rate: origin competition, direct versus feeder service, carrier allocation, commodity, named-account status, local charges and validity rules can create a meaningful gap.

The 2023–2026 comparison shows four distinct regimes: post-pandemic normalization in 2023; Red Sea and early peak-season disruption in 2024; a weak and oversupplied market in mid-2025; and a renewed tariff- and fuel-sensitive upswing in 2026. July 2026 SCFI route levels are far above 2025 but still below the extreme July 2024 peak. The most likely 8–12 week scenario is controlled softening rather than a collapse, provided carriers continue blank sailings and capacity management. The downside risk increases materially if front-loaded cargo fades faster than carriers remove supply.

Five Key Conclusions

• SCFI confirms that the 2026 Transpacific market is elevated, but the U.S. West Coast is already correcting faster than the East Coast.
• The 2023–2026 history is not a straight trend: freight has moved through four different demand, capacity and geopolitical regimes.
• Current demand includes genuine seasonal cargo, but a meaningful share is front-loading ahead of tariffs and higher fuel-related costs.
• Carrier blank sailings and allocation control are supporting rates; therefore, effective capacity matters more than nominal fleet growth in the short term.
• Vietnam shippers should compare all-in quotations and validity basis, not rely on SCFI, FBX or a carrier’s published FAK level alone.

Current Market Snapshot: Vietnam to the U.S. and Canada

Market	Current condition	Benchmark signal	Main commercial explanation	Recommended action
U.S. West Coast	High but correcting	SCFI: USD 5,721/FEU; FBX01: USD 7,068/FEU	Front-loading is easing; carriers are using blank sailings to slow the decline.	Do not chase peak offers. Compare 2–3 carriers and protect the rate basis.
U.S. East/Gulf Coast	High and relatively firm	SCFI: USD 8,172/FEU; FBX03: USD 9,102/FEU	Longer routing, Panama/Suez exposure and smaller capacity pool support a premium.	Book critical cargo earlier and verify routing, transshipment and free time.
Canada West Coast	Selective and service-dependent	No single SCFI Canada route; use USWC/FBX regional signals	Vancouver and Prince Rupert have different volume and rail profiles.	Check rail allocation, inland cut-off and destination free time before confirming.
Canada East Coast	Premium and less transparent	Use USEC, North Europe and carrier-specific quotations as references	Transshipment, rail and inland components can dominate the all-in cost.	Request a full destination cost sheet; do not compare ocean freight alone.

Benchmark dates: SCFI 17 July 2026; FBX Week 29 ending 17 July 2026. Index levels are references and are not actual Vietnam-origin quotations.

Demand: real peak season or front-loading?

The current market contains both real seasonal demand and front-loaded demand. U.S. retailers and importers have advanced orders to reduce exposure to possible tariff changes, fuel surcharges and geopolitical disruption. This creates a compressed peak: cargo that would normally ship in August or September is moved in June and July. The near-term effect is tight space and stronger spot rates; the later effect can be a demand gap because future inventory has already arrived.

For Vietnam, the booking pattern is not identical to China. Furniture, wood products, tires, garments, footwear, electronics and project-related cargo have different order cycles and tariff sensitivities. Ex-Vietnam demand can therefore remain firm on selected commodities even when China-origin indices begin to decline. Pricing teams should separate market-wide sentiment from actual RFQ conversion and carrier load factors in Ho Chi Minh City, Cai Mep and Hai Phong.(Vietnam–U.S. & Canada Freight Outlook)

Supply: nominal capacity versus effective capacity

Nominal fleet supply continues to expand, but spot pricing is determined by effective capacity—the space carriers actually make available on a specific sailing and allocation. Carriers can defend yield through blank sailings, smaller vessels, service omissions, allocation reductions, premium products and tighter acceptance of low-rate cargo. Drewry reported nine Transpacific blank sailings for the following week on 16 July 2026, illustrating how capacity can be actively managed even while new vessels enter the global fleet.

Carrier strategy: yield protection and differentiated acceptance

Published FAK, GRI and PSS levels are not the same as collected rates. Carriers may announce a high quantum, then selectively waive or discount it for BCO contracts, named accounts, strategic NVOCCs or cargo that fills weak sailings. The commercial question is therefore not only whether a PSS exists, but how much of it is being collected, for which dates, and under which rate-validity basis.

Why SCFI Matters for the Vietnam Market (Vietnam–U.S. & Canada Freight Outlook)

The Shanghai Containerized Freight Index is a weekly benchmark compiled by the Shanghai Shipping Exchange. It reflects spot ocean freight and specified maritime surcharges for Shanghai exports. The U.S. West Coast and U.S. East Coast route assessments are quoted in USD per FEU; the composite index is a weighted index with a base of 1,000 on 16 October 2009. SCFI includes maritime surcharges such as BAF/FAF, PSS and war-risk or congestion-related items, but excludes landside charges including terminal handling at both ends, U.S. automatic customs declaration charges and inland on-carriage.

SCFI element	What it measures	Implication for Vietnam users
Geographic scope	Shanghai export spot market	Strong Asian pricing signal, but not a Vietnam port-pair rate.
U.S. route unit	USD per FEU	Directly comparable in container size to many FAK quotations.
Rate content	Ocean freight plus specified maritime surcharges	Still excludes THC, customs filing and inland charges.
Publication	Normally every Friday at 15:00 Beijing time	Useful for weekly trend monitoring and GRI/PSS follow-through.
Base ports	USWC: Los Angeles/Long Beach/Oakland; USEC: New York/Savannah/Norfolk/Charleston	Does not cover every inland point or Canadian destination.
Market type	Spot, CY–CY, general cargo	Not a substitute for NAC, service contract, special equipment or DG pricing.

Methodology source: Shanghai Shipping Exchange, “Compilation and Publication of SCFI.”

Why SCFI often moves in the same direction as ex-Vietnam rates

• The same global carriers manage vessel networks, equipment and pricing across China, Vietnam and other Asian origins.
• Transpacific GRIs and PSS are frequently launched on a regional or Asia-wide basis, even when the collected amount differs by origin.
• Vietnam cargo often connects through or competes with regional hubs, so China-origin space pressure can influence feeder and mainline allocation.
• Shanghai, Ningbo and South China remain major price-setting markets; their booking momentum changes carrier behavior across Asia.

Why SCFI should never be copied as a Vietnam quotation

• Vietnam may have a direct service, feeder service or different vessel allocation from Shanghai.
• Carrier competition and backhaul requirements can make Vietnam cheaper or more expensive than the benchmark.
• Local charges, documentation, AMS, THC, equipment positioning and destination costs are outside the SCFI route assessment.
• FAK, NAC, contract and fixed-spot products may use different validity rules and surcharge treatment.
• Commodity, weight, DG status, free time and inland destination can materially change the all-in price.

Benchmark	Scope	Format	Best use for Interchains	Main limitation
SCFI	Shanghai export spot rates	Weekly; route and composite	Strong directional signal for Vietnam	Not a Vietnam quotation; excludes landside charges
FBX01 / FBX03	China/East Asia to North America	Regional 40-foot benchmark	Broader regional cross-check and includes East Asian origin coverage	Methodology and geographic basket differ from a specific Vietnam lane
Drewry WCI	Eight major global port pairs	Weekly 40-foot benchmark	Useful for Shanghai–Los Angeles/New York spot confirmation	Narrow port-pair scope and not Vietnam-origin
Carrier/NVOCC quote	Specific POL/POD, commodity and validity	Live commercial offer	Primary booking decision source	Must check all-in scope, space, free time and rate application basis

SCFI Comparison: Mid-July 2023–2026

A same-period comparison is more informative than comparing a current weekly rate with an annual average. The table below uses the closest available mid-July SCFI publication in each year. It captures the market regime at a similar point in the traditional Transpacific peak-season calendar.

Year / date	SCFI composite	USWC USD/FEU	USEC USD/FEU	Dominant market driver	Commercial interpretation
2023 14 Jul	979	1,771	2,662	Post-pandemic normalization; fleet capacity exceeded demand.	Low-rate market; carriers struggled to sustain GRIs.
2024 12 Jul	3,675	7,654	9,881	Red Sea rerouting, early ordering and Asian port/equipment pressure.	Extreme peak; +302% USWC and +271% USEC versus 2023.
2025 18 Jul	1,646.90	2,142	3,612	Tariff-driven front-loading had faded; persistent overcapacity.	Sharp correction; USWC -72% and USEC -63% versus 2024.
2026 17 Jul	3,080.31	5,721	8,172	Tariff/fuel anxiety, compressed peak and carrier capacity control.	USWC +167% and USEC +126% versus 2025, but below 2024.

Sources: Shanghai Shipping Exchange data reproduced in Linerlytica Market Pulse (2023–2024), Thai National Shippers’ Council weekly report (2025), and Shanghai Shipping Exchange data reproduced by GATH Logistics (2026). Dates are the closest mid-July publication in each year.

What the four-year comparison means

First, 2026 is expensive relative to the normalized 2023 and weak 2025 markets. Second, it is not yet as extreme as July 2024, when both coasts were close to or above USD 8,000–10,000/FEU. Third, the East Coast premium has persisted across all four years because the route has a longer voyage, more network constraints and greater exposure to Panama/Suez routing and transshipment decisions. Finally, the violent year-to-year swings show why annual tender assumptions should include trigger-based reviews rather than one fixed “market view.”

FBX cross-check: the same cycle appears in a broader East Asia benchmark

Year / date	FBX01 Asia–USWC USD/FEU	FBX03 Asia–USEC USD/FEU	Market message
2023 11 Jul	1,319	2,376	Low spot market; excess capacity and normalizing demand.
2024 16 Jul	8,101	9,620	Red Sea-driven capacity absorption and early peak.
2025 16 Jul	2,369	4,888	Post-front-loading correction and weak rate support.
2026 17 Jul	7,068	9,102	Renewed surge, but West Coast started correcting in Week 29.

Sources: Freightos weekly updates for 2023–2025; Baltic Exchange Container Report, Week 29, for 2026. FBX and SCFI use different methodologies, so compare the direction and regime rather than treating the values as interchangeable.

INTERPRETATION: SCFI and FBX tell the same broad story—2023 normalization, 2024 disruption peak, 2025 correction and 2026 renewed volatility. The difference in absolute values is expected because SCFI is Shanghai-specific while FBX is a broader China/East Asia benchmark.

How the 2026 Rate Surge Developed

Period	Rate development	Commercial explanation
January	Market opened at a relatively moderate level after weak Q4 2025.	Importers had not yet accelerated peak-season orders.
April–May	Rates began to rise as tariff and geopolitical risk increased.	Demand improved while carriers tightened space and adjusted services.
June	Transpacific benchmarks accelerated sharply.	Front-loading, fuel risk and successful capacity management reinforced one another.
Early July	Carriers pushed FAK, GRI and PSS levels higher.	Customers prioritized space and schedule reliability over the lowest rate.
Mid-July	USWC started to correct; USEC remained firmer.	The front-loading impulse weakened while carriers announced additional blank sailings.

Current benchmark divergence

Benchmark	17 Jul 2026 level	Weekly move	What it indicates
SCFI USWC	USD 5,721/FEU	-8.0% week on week	Fastest visible correction among the headline Transpacific benchmarks.
SCFI USEC	USD 8,172/FEU	+0.5% week on week	East Coast remained supported by routing and capacity constraints.
FBX01 Asia–USWC	USD 7,068/FEU	Down USD 598 week on week	Broader regional benchmark also shows cooling.
FBX03 Asia–USEC	USD 9,102/FEU	Flat week on week	Premium lane remained stable at a high level.
Drewry Shanghai–LA	USD 6,272/40ft	-3% week on week	Confirms West Coast correction.
Drewry Shanghai–NY	USD 7,879/40ft	Stable	Confirms East Coast resilience.

Sources: Shanghai Shipping Exchange; Baltic Exchange Week 29; Drewry World Container Index, 16 July 2026.

Canada Is Not Simply “the U.S. Market Plus a Different Port”

Canada is influenced by the same Asia capacity and pricing cycle, but the commercial structure differs. Vancouver and Prince Rupert depend heavily on rail performance and inland allocation. Montreal and other eastern gateways may involve different carrier rotations, transshipment and inland cost structures. A strong U.S. West Coast benchmark can lift Canada West Coast offers, but local port, rail and equipment conditions can still create a separate premium or discount.

May 2026 port data illustrated this divergence: inbound laden volume at Vancouver was lower year on year even while Los Angeles and Long Beach recorded strong gains. This means a regional rate index should not be used to infer Canadian demand without checking port-specific throughput and rail conditions. For Interchains, Canadian quotations should always identify whether the ocean rate includes destination handling, rail, inland fuel, chassis or other pass-through charges.

Gateway / market	Structural advantage	Main risk	Best pricing reference
Vancouver	Direct Asia services; major gateway	Rail allocation, terminal dwell, equipment return	SCFI USWC / FBX01 direction plus carrier quote
Prince Rupert	Short Pacific crossing and rail connectivity	Smaller service base; schedule and rail concentration	Carrier-specific space and inland product
Montreal	Eastern Canada gateway	Transshipment/service pattern and St. Lawrence constraints	USEC / Europe network signals plus local quote
Toronto/Montreal inland via U.S. or Canada	Multiple routing options	Customs, rail, drayage and destination charges can outweigh ocean difference	Compare full landed logistics cost, not port-to-port freight

8–12 Week Outlook: Three Scenarios

The forecast below is a planning framework, not a quotation. It assumes no single benchmark can reproduce ex-Vietnam FAK or contract rates. The ranges indicate likely market zones for Asia-origin 40-foot spot freight before origin/destination local charges and inland costs.

Scenario	Probability	Trigger	Indicative planning band	Expected market behavior
Base case	55%	Front-loading fades gradually; carriers continue blank sailings and selective capacity cuts.	USWC / Canada West: USD 5,500–7,000 USEC / Canada East: USD 7,500–9,200	Controlled softening with short-lived GRI attempts.
Upside risk	25%	Tariff deadline, fuel shock, port disruption or more aggressive capacity withdrawal.	USWC / Canada West: USD 7,000–8,500+ USEC / Canada East: USD 9,000–11,000+	High volatility; premium products and PSS become more collectable.
Downside risk	20%	Front-loaded demand stops abruptly; extra capacity returns faster than carriers can blank.	USWC / Canada West: USD 4,000–5,500 USEC / Canada East: USD 6,000–7,500	Rapid discounting and widening gap between published and collected rates.

Interchains planning ranges based on SCFI, FBX, WCI, carrier behavior and demand/capacity signals as of 21 July 2026. They are not carrier offers.

Key variables to monitor weekly

Indicator	What to watch	Pricing implication
SCFI USWC and USEC	Direction and speed of weekly change	Two consecutive declines with failed GRIs strengthen the downside case.
FBX01 / FBX03	Regional confirmation	A widening SCFI–FBX gap may signal origin-specific pricing or methodology effects.
Blank sailings	Effective capacity removal	More blank sailings can slow or reverse a decline.
U.S. import forecasts	Whether front-loading continues	A steep post-July volume drop weakens carrier pricing power.
Fuel and geopolitical risk	Bunker and routing cost	A new shock can support EFS/PSS even when demand weakens.
Vietnam RFQ conversion	Actual local booking demand	The best real-time signal for ex-HCM, Cai Mep and HPH pricing.

Recommendations for Importers and Exporters

Situation	Recommended action	Reason
Cargo required within 4–6 weeks	Book core volume now; avoid waiting for a full market correction.	Secure space and limit stock-out risk.
Flexible cargo	Split volume across two validity windows or carriers.	Preserve upside if rates fall while maintaining capacity.
Shipment near rate expiry	Confirm whether validity is based on gate-in, cargo received, booked ETD, actual ETD or loading date.	Avoid uncontrolled repricing after delay or rollover.
U.S. inland destination	Compare USWC rail, USEC direct and alternative gateway total cost.	Ocean freight alone can produce the wrong routing choice.
Canada shipment	Request rail, chassis, free time, destination and release charges in writing.	Prevent a low ocean rate from becoming a high landed cost.
High-volume programme	Use a mix of contract/NAC and floating spot exposure.	Balance cost stability and market participation.

Recommendations for NVOCCs and Freight Forwarders

Commercial area	Recommended practice	Benefit
Benchmarking	Track SCFI, FBX and live Vietnam quotations separately.	Avoid presenting an index as an executable rate.
Buying strategy	Maintain at least two carrier/NVOCC sources per coast and one alternative routing.	Reduce dependency on one allocation or GRI policy.
Selling validity	Mirror the upstream rate application basis and rollover protection.	Prevent margin loss when actual ETD crosses a new rate period.
PSS/GRI control	Ask whether the surcharge is published, collected, waived or capped for the account.	Published quantum may differ materially from actual collection.
Canada handling	Pre-agree fixed destination fees and pass-through charges with the agent.	Improve transparency and reduce consignee disputes.
Margin management	Use a risk buffer or maximum exposure clause when upstream pricing is floating.	Do not sell a fixed all-in rate against an unprotected cost.

INTERCHAINS INSIGHT: The correct use of SCFI is not to tell a Vietnamese shipper, “Shanghai is USD 5,721, so Vietnam should be the same.” The correct use is to identify the market regime, test whether carrier GRIs are holding, compare the regional trend with live ex-Vietnam offers, and then select the best all-in routing with protected validity.

Interchains.vn

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is SCFI an actual Vietnam freight rate?

No. SCFI measures Shanghai export spot rates. It is a directional benchmark for Vietnam, but a booking decision requires a specific carrier or NVOCC quotation from the actual Vietnam port.

2. Why is SCFI relevant to Vietnam?

China and Vietnam share many of the same carriers, Transpacific services, regional equipment flows and GRI/PSS cycles. Shanghai pricing therefore often leads or mirrors the direction of Vietnam offers.

3. What is included in SCFI?

It includes ocean freight and specified maritime surcharges. It excludes landside charges such as terminal handling at both ends, U.S. customs declaration-related charges and inland on-carriage.

4. Why are SCFI and FBX values different?

SCFI is Shanghai-specific, while FBX01 and FBX03 cover a broader China/East Asia regional basket and use a different methodology. They should be used as cross-checks, not interchangeable prices.

5. Is July 2026 more expensive than July 2024?

No. Mid-July 2026 SCFI USWC and USEC levels remain roughly 20% and 17% below the comparable July 2024 levels, although they are far above 2025.

6. Why did rates rise so sharply from 2025 to 2026?

The 2026 market combined tariff front-loading, fuel and geopolitical risk, an early compressed peak season and carrier capacity management.

7. Could rates fall quickly after front-loading ends?

Yes. If cargo has been pulled forward and carriers restore capacity too quickly, the market can correct sharply. Blank sailings are the main short-term defense against that outcome.

8. Why is the U.S. East Coast usually more expensive?

It has a longer voyage, a smaller and more complex capacity pool, and greater routing exposure through Panama, Suez or transshipment networks.

9. Should shippers book now or wait?

Critical cargo should secure space now. Flexible cargo can be split across carriers or validity periods to retain some benefit if the market softens.

10. What should a Vietnam quotation state clearly?

POL/POD, carrier, routing, transit time, validity basis, included surcharges, local charges, free time, equipment, commodity conditions and rollover protection.

11. Does a published PSS mean every customer pays it?

No. Collection can differ by account, contract, named account, NVOCC relationship and sailing. Ask for the collected amount and waiver conditions.

12. How should Canadian rates be evaluated?

Compare ocean freight together with terminal, rail, chassis, inland, free-time and agent charges. Canada is influenced by U.S. benchmarks but has its own port and rail dynamics.

Interchains supports importers, exporters and overseas agents with route-specific rate checking, carrier and NVOCC comparison, FCL/LCL ocean freight, documentation coordination, customs support and door-to-door planning. Our advisory approach combines global indices with executable Vietnam-origin quotations, operational constraints and destination cost visibility.

CALL TO ACTION: For a lane-specific comparison, send Interchains the POL, POD/final destination, commodity, container type, gross weight, cargo-ready date and target ETD. We will compare rate, space, routing, transit time, validity basis and all-in cost—not only the headline ocean freight.

External References

1. Shanghai Shipping Exchange – SCFI methodology and current index
2. Shanghai Shipping Exchange – SCFI index page
3. GATH Logistics – SCFI table updated 17 July 2026, sourced from SSE
4. Baltic Exchange – Container Report, Week 29, 17 July 2026
5. Drewry – World Container Index, 16 July 2026
6. National Retail Federation – Global Port Tracker, July 2026
7. Maersk – North America Market Update, July 2026
8. Pacific Merchant Shipping Association – May 2026 North American port traffic
9. Freightos – 11 July 2023 weekly update
10. Freightos – 16 July 2024 weekly update
11. Freightos – 16 July 2025 weekly update
12. Thai National Shippers’ Council – Week 29/2025 report reproducing SCFI data
13. Linerlytica Market Pulse – July 2024 report with 2023 comparison