Connect with us

Non classé

Container Shipping Overcapacity & Rate Outlook 2026

Published

on

Container Shipping Overcapacity & Rate Outlook 2026

Published: January 27, 2026

Blog

Container freight is poised for a downcycle – putting downward pressure on rates and carrier revenue – starting in 2026 as an unprecedented wave of new vessel capacity enters the market. But despite signs of overcapacity in 2025, carriers continue ordering new vessels and holding onto older ships.

In a recent Freightos market update webinar, Parash Jain, Managing Director, Global Head of Transport & Logistics Research at HSBC shared his analysis of this state of affairs: This seemingly counterintuitive strategy reflects carrier lessons learned from recent disruptions and longer-term strategic positioning, at the cost of rate and revenue challenges for carriers in the coming years.

Key Takeaways

There’s a reason vessels aren’t being retired. Despite overcapacity concerns, carriers are maintaining older vessels as insurance against unpredictable disruptions, the “known unknowns” of global shipping – like COVID and the Red Sea crisis –- for which available capacity has helped carriers keep containers moving and maximize volumes and revenue.

Pandemic-era profits have both allowed carriers to pay down vessel debt – reducing pressure to scrap ships – and enabled them to prepare for the future now via newbuilds

Individual carriers have to make vessel purchase decisions based on their own needs and strategies, not on the aggregate capacity level in the market – likewise contributing to vessel order growth despite industry overcapacity

Expect a cyclical pattern of sharp rate dips followed by periods of recovery through capacity management in the near term, though overall rate levels will likely trend lower than 2025 through the downcycle. In the long-term, the larger fleets will make the market more resilient (should carriers choose to activate them when the going gets tough).

An oversupplied market: Trends in overcapacity

One of the biggest factors likely to impact container rates in 2026 is the growing global fleet.

Since 2021, carriers have been plowing their record profits earned from record revenues during the pandemic years into a record number of orders for new vessels – some of which started being delivered in 2023. According to S+P, an estimated ten million TEU of container ship capacity – the size of a third of the current active fleet – is now on order and will be delivered over the next few years.

Source: S+P in JOC.com

As demand eased post-pandemic and new vessels started being delivered, Freightos Baltic Index spot rates fell sharply with transpacific pricing to the West Coast (FBX01) dipping below $1,000/FEU in March of 2023. When the Red Sea crisis began however, the longer sailing times for Asia – Europe voyages and the extra vessels deployed to maintain departure schedules on these lanes absorbed that excess capacity, pushing freight rates up to their highest levels since COVID.

But new vessels continued to enter the market in 2024 and 2025. And even with Red Sea diversions continuing throughout 2025, the growing supply pushed East – West long haul rates down by 45% year on year, with transpacific rates slipping to $1,400/FEU in October 2025.

Check out our Container Bytes podcast for a bitsize weekly freight update

Driving a Downcycle

The current orderbook size means the fleet will continue to grow significantly over the coming few years, such that even with demand growth, most observers project a container market downcycle: capacity is expected to outpace volumes putting persistent downward pressure on freight rates, reducing carrier revenues and even spurring losses.

Carriers maintain that they will pull all the capacity management levers – blanked sailings, idled vessels, service suspensions, slow steaming and scrapping – to balance supply with demand and minimize or avoid periods of losses. But despite the current signs of overcapacity, the current idle fleet is minimal and very few older ships have been scrapped. What’s more, carriers continue to order more vessels to join the already overstocked fleet.

Why no scrapping? The “Known Unknown”

Lessons learned and profits earned in the last few years may be motivating carriers to hold on to older ships even at the risk of oversupply.

More Capacity for Better Resilience

Though it may not have seemed that way as delays mounted and freight rates spiked, the slack capacity available during the pandemic did help carriers keep containers moving. Post-COVID, as noted above, overcapacity was one factor to loss making rates at times in 2023. But by December, carriers were diverting away from the Red Sea, and vessels that had just been considered oversupply were now key to carriers (mostly) maintaining departure schedules despite the much longer voyages. Available capacity was key to helping shippers keep their orders coming while also allowing carriers to maximize volumes and revenues even with the disruption.

Want freight insights direct to your inbox?

Subscribe to the Freightos weekly freight update

And the list of examples of disruptions for which having excess capacity available has helped carriers adjust –- the Russia-Ukraine war, Panama Canal drought, Baltimore bridge collapse, port strikes, and tariff frontloading – since the pandemic is a long one. This list makes a compelling argument that the next unpredictable disruption – the “known unknown” – is out there, and makes keeping older, extra vessels active despite the overcapacity risk make sense.

Pandemic-era carrier profits are also playing a part in the decision not to scrap older vessels. In previous downcycles, carriers have been incentivized to scrap vessels and use the proceeds to pay down debt or cover losses from sinking revenues. This time though, carriers have already used those record profits to pay down almost all debt on their vessels over the last few years and still have cash on hand to cover losses if they arise.

But why are more container ships on the orderbooks in 2026?

The above factors make a case for keeping paid off vessels in circulation, but if these also increase the risk of overcapacity, why are carriers continuing to order vessels after the 2021 to 2024 spending spree?

Because even if the industry is oversupplied, individual carriers can’t make ordering decisions from a market perspective. One carrier’s capacity gain doesn’t address another’s needs. So one investing in new vessels doesn’t mean a competitor won’t continue to order too, even if in the aggregate it pushes the market (further) into oversupply.

Different carriers have had different fleet renewal strategies and – especially given the low rate of new vessels ordered from 2016 to 2020 – some carriers are still playing catch up in a market where shipyard capacity is limited and vessels take a long time to build. Finally, the COVID profits mean carriers have the opportunity now to invest in new, more efficient and lower carbon ships and prepare for the next twenty-five years, even if it means contributing to a downcycle.

Can capacity management prevent downcycle losses?

Much to the surprise of long time observers, in recent years carriers have demonstrated the ability to manage capacity effectively and keep rates up in times of demand collapses – first during the initial volume drop in the first months of the pandemic, and more recently during the month and a half in 2025 when US tariffs on China stood at 145%.

If carriers kept rates level when demand evaporated, why can’t they do the same when capacity grows?

When demand collapses were abrupt, like in 2020 and 2025, carriers were able to make a proportionate response – in many cases just simply keeping vessels wherever they were at the time – and keep rates level.

But when the imbalance is structural, gradual and sustained – like in a supply-drive downcycle – the process of rebalancing can be much more challenging and prolonged. As the examples of the supply-driven rate slides in 2023 and late Q3 through October of 2025 show, it is harder to maintain that discipline when the drivers are a trend instead of a shock. And since incremental costs of taking on additional containers decrease once a vessel is already mostly booked, the economics of container shipping can also sometimes help push carriers into low or loss making rate environments.

But both instances of extremely low spot rates in 2023 and 2025 were followed by periods of rate recovery through capacity reductions even as demand continued to ease, and further price increases as seasonal demand picked up.

This pattern is likely the one we’ll see repeated over the coming years as capacity continues to grow: overall downward pressure on rates with levels likely lower than in 2025, and periods of very low spot prices followed by rate recoveries via capacity management or increases in demand.

All things being equal, this scenario should be a big driver of rate and revenue levels in the container market until a rebalance of supply and demand spurs the next upcycle.

On to the next known unknown?

But of course, the known unknowns that will shake up this pattern are out there: It is known that carriers – at some point – will resume Red Sea transits, which will at first trigger congestion that will absorb capacity, but then release even more supply once the delays unwind, increasing the overcapacity challenge. And geopolitical disruptions that could close shipping lanes, or sudden trade war shifts that could drive sudden demand spikes (or collapses) are all too plausible.

If these or other disruptions arise in the next few years, shippers will lament higher prices, but also be grateful that carriers have the available capacity to keep containers moving nonetheless.

You can catch our Global Freight Outlook webinar every month, or sign up for our weekly international freight update, here.

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post Container Shipping Overcapacity & Rate Outlook 2026 appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Infor Builds More Intelligence Into Logistics Execution

Published

on

By

Warehouse and transportation systems have traditionally been judged on execution reliability: receive the inventory, build the wave, pick the order, plan the shipment, tender the load, and record the transaction correctly. Those requirements have not disappeared, but the competitive frontier is moving toward systems that can interpret operating conditions and help improve the work while it is happening.

Infor’s logistics portfolio reflects that shift. Infor WMS combines core warehouse execution with labor management, yard capabilities, 3PL billing, visualization, and connectivity to automation. The broader Infor cloud environment adds analytics, workflow, integration services, machine learning, robotic process automation, and digital-assistant capabilities that can increasingly influence operational decisions rather than simply report them.

The result is a useful example of how mature execution software is being modernized. Warehouse operations are becoming more automated, transportation networks more dynamic, and labor more constrained. Systems therefore need to coordinate people, inventory, equipment, automation, and external logistics partners while also providing enough intelligence to prioritize exceptions and adapt plans during the day.

The critical issue is execution discipline. AI features are valuable only when they improve an already dependable operating process. Buyers should validate core functional depth, automation interfaces, cloud architecture, and the quality of the recommendations generated from operational data before treating AI as a differentiator by itself.

Infor can be viewed in both the Logistics Viewpoints Transportation Management Systems MarketMap and Warehouse Management Systems MarketMap. Those two MarketMaps provide a useful way to assess how the company is evolving across the connected transportation and warehouse execution environment.

The post Infor Builds More Intelligence Into Logistics Execution appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Global Trade Management Is Becoming a Real-Time Supply Chain Control System

Published

on

By

Executive thesis. Global trade management is moving from compliance transaction processing toward real-time supply chain control. Trade rules now alter sourcing, routing, inventory, landed cost, and customer commitments before goods move.

Trade decisions now change network economics

Global trade management was once treated primarily as a compliance and documentation layer around cross-border transactions. That view is incomplete. Classification, origin, duties, sanctions, export controls, customs rules, and regulatory content can change the economics or feasibility of a sourcing, routing, inventory, or customer decision before the shipment ever moves.

Compliance data is operational data

A product classification affects duty. Origin affects eligibility and tariff treatment. Screening can stop a transaction. Customs documentation can determine whether freight clears or waits. These are not administrative attributes detached from the physical network. They are operating constraints that need to be available to procurement, order management, planning, transportation, and finance when decisions are made.

Auditability is part of automation

The more trade processes are automated, the more consequential it becomes to preserve the evidence behind the result. A classification, screening decision, origin determination, or duty calculation should be traceable to the data, rule set, version, and workflow that produced it. Automation without defensibility creates risk because the enterprise may be unable to explain why a transaction was approved, blocked, or costed a certain way.

Integration determines whether GTM can influence execution

GTM value is constrained if it operates as an isolated compliance application. The platform needs reliable connections to ERP, PLM, procurement, orders, transportation, brokers, and content providers. Those integrations allow trade rules to influence decisions before commitments are made and allow executed transactions to be reconciled against what was planned.

The category is moving toward control

This is why GTM is becoming more than a recordkeeping system. The strategic opportunity is to turn changing trade conditions into controlled operational responses: identify exposure, understand the economic consequence, evaluate alternatives, update the transaction, and preserve the evidence. That is the same signal-to-decision-to-execution pattern appearing elsewhere in modern supply chain architecture.

The Logistics Viewpoints Global Trade Management (GTM) Software: Buyer’s Guide covers classification, origin, screening, export controls, customs, duty, landed cost, brokers, regulatory content, auditability, and enterprise integration as parts of one operating system.

Executive implication

GTM should be designed as an operational control system with auditable rules, enterprise context, and direct integration into planning and execution decisions.

Go deeper: provides the durable buyer, architecture, and implementation reference for this topic. Global Trade & Compliance connects this analysis to the broader Logistics Viewpoints research architecture.

Related Logistics Viewpoints research

Download the Global Trade Management (GTM) Solutions Executive Summary
Risk & Resilience in the Supply Chain

Go Deeper

Read the full Global Trade Management (GTM) Software: Buyer’s Guide.

Explore the broader Global Trade & Compliance domain for related Logistics Viewpoints research and analysis.

The post Global Trade Management Is Becoming a Real-Time Supply Chain Control System appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Supply Chain Technology Markets Are Converging Faster Than Vendor Categories

Published

on

By

The New Logistics Advantage — Part 6 of 9

Supply chain technology markets are usually described as categories. WMS, TMS, planning, visibility, control towers, order management, warehouse automation, decision intelligence, and other segments each have established buyers, competitors, and functional boundaries.

Those categories remain commercially useful. But strategically, the boundaries are moving faster than the labels. Providers are expanding into adjacent workflows, intelligence, orchestration, and automation, while buyers increasingly assemble architectures that cut across the traditional category map.

Convergence Is Happening From Multiple Directions

Execution vendors are adding intelligence. Planning vendors are moving closer to operational workflows. Visibility providers are extending toward exception resolution. Automation vendors are building software layers. Enterprise platforms are embedding AI. Specialized AI providers are attacking decision processes that historically lived inside application categories.

The four current MarketMaps make this movement visible. The 2026 Warehouse Management Systems Market Map examines a mature execution category expanding around automation and intelligence. The 2026 Transportation Management Systems Market Map shows a durable market becoming more connected to networks, visibility, and orchestration. The 2026 Autonomous Exception Management Market Map captures an emerging category between visibility and coordinated response. The 2026 Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map addresses the broader shift toward systems organized around decisions.

The same pattern appears in buyer expectations. A warehouse platform is increasingly judged on automation connectivity and intelligence. A TMS is judged on network data, visibility, and response. A planning system is judged on whether recommendations can be operationalized. The category still defines the core job; differentiation increasingly comes from the adjacent layers.

The Competitive Battleground Is Shifting to Control Points

Products are expanding along several dimensions: workflow, data, intelligence, orchestration, automation, user experience, and ecosystem connectivity. Those dimensions matter because each can become a control point in the architecture.

A provider that owns the system of record controls authoritative transaction state. A provider with unique network data may control context. A decision-intelligence layer can shape which alternatives are considered. An orchestration platform can determine how work moves among systems. An automation platform can control the final physical action.

Two vendors can therefore compete even when analysts place them in different categories. A WMS provider and a warehouse-automation software platform may both seek to own task orchestration. A visibility provider and an exception-management platform may both seek to own disruption response. A planning provider and a decision-intelligence provider may both seek to own the cross-functional recommendation.

This is why convergence does not necessarily mean that one suite replaces everything. It means more vendors are competing for the same strategic control points from different starting positions.

The Buyer Problem Becomes Architectural

Traditional category evaluation begins with feature completeness. That remains necessary, especially for systems of record. But as markets converge, buyers need a second question: Which layer of the operating architecture is this provider attempting to control?

The market-research executive summaries provide category depth that remains essential: WMS, TMS, Supply Chain Planning, and OMS each explain the structure and capabilities of important markets. The strategic challenge is to interpret those markets as parts of a changing architecture rather than as permanent silos.

A buyer may select the strongest product in a category and still create a weak portfolio if the product traps data, duplicates decision logic, constrains adjacent workflows, or makes future substitution prohibitively difficult. Architectural fit therefore becomes part of product value.

This creates a useful distinction between functional depth and architectural leverage. Functional depth answers whether the product can perform its core job. Architectural leverage answers whether the product improves or constrains the larger system around it.

Convergence Changes Vendor Strategy Too

For providers, adjacency strategy needs discipline. Expanding into every neighboring function can increase surface area while weakening differentiation. The more important question is which adjacent capability reinforces an existing control point.

A TMS with strong transportation state may have a credible path into exception intelligence because it already sees important network events. A WMS with deep execution state may have a credible path into warehouse orchestration. A planning platform with broad enterprise context may have a credible path into decision support. The logic of expansion should follow the asset the provider already controls, not simply the size of the adjacent market.

That also raises the importance of interoperability. In a converging market, customers will resist architectures that require every adjacent capability to come from one supplier. Providers that can participate in a heterogeneous system may create more strategic value than providers that maximize suite breadth at the cost of flexibility.

The Executive Implication

Technology strategy should separate two questions that are often conflated: Which product is strongest inside a category? and Which architecture will remain adaptable as categories converge? The first is a product-selection problem. The second is a portfolio and operating-model problem. Organizations that solve only the first can end up with excellent applications that constrain future change. Organizations that solve both can preserve functional depth while creating room for new forms of intelligence, automation, and orchestration.

For buyers and providers alike, category labels still matter. But the more strategic question is increasingly about control: who owns the record, the context, the decision, the workflow, and the path to execution?

Explore the Related Logistics Viewpoints Research

2026 WMS Market Map
2026 TMS Market Map
2026 Autonomous Exception Management Market Map
2026 Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map
WMS Executive Summary
TMS Executive Summary
Supply Chain Planning Executive Summary
The New Architecture of Logistics

The post Supply Chain Technology Markets Are Converging Faster Than Vendor Categories appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending