Maersk freight rates track market more closely

Maersk’s average freight rates are tracking movements in the wider container market more closely than during the pandemic surge, according to new analysis of the carrier’s quarterly pricing.

Shipping consultancy Sea-Intelligence compared average rates reported by A.P. Moller – Maersk with the Container Trade Statistics global average, using the fourth quarter of 2023 as a common baseline for the latest market cycle. The resulting pattern shows relatively little divergence between Maersk’s realised pricing and the wider benchmark.

The finding contrasts with the pandemic period, when the carrier’s average rates rose more slowly than the wider market during the steepest part of the pricing surge. Sea-Intelligence argues that Maersk appeared to exercise greater restraint in passing those increases into its average rates, potentially in the expectation that a less aggressive rise would also produce a more gradual decline later.

That second part did not materialise. When the market weakened, Maersk’s reported average rates fell broadly alongside the wider benchmark rather than retaining a significant premium created by the earlier pricing restraint. The consultancy consequently concludes that the company surrendered part of the upside without gaining a comparable cushion during the downturn.

Sea-Intelligence modelled the difference between Maersk’s realised rates and a hypothetical scenario in which pricing had followed the market more closely during the pandemic cycle. Its estimate puts the resulting revenue opportunity at approximately $15.8bn, although that figure is a counterfactual calculation rather than a reported Maersk loss.

The distinction is important. Maersk has not announced a formal policy stating that it will automatically match a particular external freight index. The latest analysis instead shows that its average realised rates during the current cycle have moved much closer to the broader CTS trend than they did during the exceptional 2020-22 market.

Individual customers will still see very different outcomes. Container freight is priced according to trade lane, volume, equipment, contract duration, service level, commodity, season, and negotiating position, while surcharges can change the final invoice independently of the base ocean rate. A global corporate average cannot predict what a particular shipper will pay on a specific route.

It can, however, indicate how quickly major market changes are feeding through the carrier’s wider book of business. A smaller lag between market indices and realised carrier rates gives freight buyers less insulation when capacity tightens suddenly and also creates the possibility of reductions feeding through more quickly when the market weakens.

The current environment gives the comparison immediate relevance. Port congestion, longer vessel routings, and periods of tight effective capacity have pushed spot pricing higher, while carriers have been managing schedules around continuing operational disruption.

Maersk’s second-quarter 2026 results reflect that backdrop. The group reported revenue of $15.8bn, EBITDA of $3.0bn, and EBIT of $1.6bn, with Ocean volumes increasing 4.1%. Higher spot freight rates helped offset additional operating costs associated with disruption, and the company raised its full-year guidance.

Those earnings do not prove a particular pricing methodology, but they show how quickly a stronger market can influence carrier performance when rate increases are captured across a sizeable portion of the book. Ocean shipping businesses have large fixed and voyage costs, so relatively modest changes in average revenue per container can have a disproportionate effect on earnings when multiplied across millions of boxes.

Freight procurement teams face the same arithmetic from the opposite side. Large shippers typically spread volumes across annual contracts, shorter tenders, index-linked agreements, and spot bookings, providing some protection against sudden movements in any one part of the market. That protection weakens when a higher spot environment persists long enough to influence contract renewals and carrier allocation decisions.

A shorter pricing lag can therefore make timing more important. Buyers waiting for a temporary market spike to fade may find that higher conditions reach contract discussions sooner, while carriers entering a falling market have less room to preserve older pricing if customer benchmarks are also moving down rapidly.

The analysis also helps separate rate behaviour from surcharge activity. Congestion, peak-season, fuel, equipment, and other charges can alter transport costs on individual trades even when a global average remains relatively steady. A carrier can therefore track the overall market closely while customers on particular lanes experience sharper movements.

For that reason, the Sea-Intelligence comparison is best treated as evidence of a change in the relationship between Maersk’s reported averages and the wider market rather than a formula for forecasting invoices. It shows that the gap visible during the pandemic has largely disappeared in the current cycle.

That leaves shippers with fewer reasons to assume that a sharp rise in container benchmarks will take a long time to reach Maersk’s realised pricing. During the pandemic, the carrier’s averages lagged an extraordinary market surge. This time, the numbers are moving together much more closely — uncomfortable timing for buyers whenever the market is moving in the wrong direction.