Container shipping’s $37bn quarter: same market, very different margins

The broad market story looks straightforward. Container demand remained stronger than many forecasts had anticipated, led by Far East exports, resilient consumer spending, inventory restocking and orders brought forward before new tariffs.

At the same time, the conflict in the Middle East reduced the efficiency of the global shipping network. Longer routes, congestion, delayed vessels and growing trade imbalances absorbed capacity. That helped to push spot freight rates higher.

For carriers, however, this was not a simple windfall. The same disruption that supported freight rates also increased fuel consumption, insurance premiums, storage costs and the expense of repositioning containers. The decisive question was therefore not whether a carrier charged more, but how much of that additional revenue it retained after paying the disruption bill.

The answer varied considerably.

At group level, Maersk and CMA CGM reported almost identical numbers. Maersk generated revenue of $15.76 billion and EBITDA of $2.99 billion, while CMA CGM recorded revenue of $15.7 billion and EBITDA of $3 billion. Both achieved an EBITDA margin of approximately 19%.

Hapag-Lloyd, a more concentrated and substantially smaller group, generated revenue of $5.84 billion and EBITDA of $829 million. Its EBITDA margin was 14.2%.

The differences become even clearer when only the container shipping businesses are compared.

CMA CGM’s shipping division achieved an EBITDA margin of 22.7%, compared with 19.4% for Maersk Ocean. Hapag-Lloyd’s liner shipping margin was approximately 13.6%.

Rates and volumes rose across all three carriers

All three operators carried more containers than a year earlier, although CMA CGM recorded the fastest growth. CMA CGM transported 6.3 million TEU, an increase of 6%. Maersk carried 3.36 million FFE—equivalent to roughly 6.72 million TEU—with loaded volumes rising by 4.1%. Hapag-Lloyd transported 3.48 million TEU, 3.5% more than in the second quarter of 2025.

Their rate development was more varied. Maersk reported the largest percentage increase, with its average loaded freight rate rising by 22% to $2,746 per FFE. CMA CGM’s average shipping revenue per TEU increased by 15.1% to $1,575, while Hapag-Lloyd’s average freight rate rose by 8.9% to $1,475 per TEU.

These measures are not perfectly interchangeable. Maersk reports loaded freight revenue per FFE, CMA CGM reports average revenue per TEU, and Hapag-Lloyd reports an average freight rate. They nevertheless point in the same direction: carriers earned considerably more from each loaded container during the quarter.

CMA CGM secured the strongest maritime margin

CMA CGM delivered the strongest profitability of the three shipping divisions. Its maritime revenue rose by 22% to $10 billion, while shipping EBITDA increased from $1.6 billion to $2.3 billion. The division’s EBITDA margin consequently climbed by 3.3 percentage points to 22.7%.

The French group benefited from both the 6% increase in volumes and higher average revenue per container. According to the company, these gains were sufficient to offset additional costs linked to vessel immobilisation, insurance premiums and weaker services involving the Middle East.

CMA CGM’s wider results also demonstrate the growing importance of terminals, air cargo and other infrastructure activities. Revenue from these operations increased by 47.6% to $1.5 billion, while EBITDA rose by 44.5% to $338 million.

Its logistics division presented a less favourable picture. CEVA Logistics and the group’s other logistics operations increased revenue by 8.5% to $5 billion, but EBITDA fell by 15.4% to $388 million. The EBITDA margin declined from 10% to 7.8%, reflecting difficult freight-forwarding conditions and continued weakness in automotive logistics.

In other words, CMA CGM’s quarter was driven primarily by shipping and terminals rather than by logistics. CMA CGM’s second-quarter results show that diversification provided scale, but did not protect every division from margin pressure.

Maersk turned rate growth into a sharp earnings recovery

Maersk’s Ocean division generated revenue of $10.53 billion, up from $8.57 billion a year earlier. EBITDA increased by 41% to $2.04 billion, while EBIT more than quadrupled from $229 million to $935 million.

That represented a major improvement not only year on year but also from the beginning of 2026. Ocean EBIT had been negative by $192 million in the first quarter before returning to a positive margin of 8.9% in the second.

Higher rates were the central driver. Maersk calculated that the freight-rate effect added approximately $1.57 billion to Ocean EBITDA, while volume growth contributed another $185 million.

But the cost pressure was also visible. Maersk’s bunker price increased by 44%, reducing EBITDA by $612 million. Higher container-handling expenses, driven by congestion and storage costs, removed a further $169 million, while timing effects and other items reduced the result by $387 million.

Maersk therefore experienced the same two-sided effect as its competitors: disruption made container capacity more valuable but also considerably more expensive to operate.

Unlike CMA CGM, Maersk also reported improving profitability in logistics. Logistics & Services revenue increased by 15% to $4.22 billion, while EBIT rose from $175 million to $217 million. The EBIT margin improved from 4.8% to 5.1%, marking the division’s ninth consecutive quarter of year-on-year margin improvement.

Performance remained uneven within the segment. Forwarding and landside activities delivered relatively strong margins, while contract logistics, lead logistics and e-commerce solutions produced an EBIT margin of only 1.7%.

The stronger Ocean result prompted Maersk to raise its 2026 guidance substantially. The group now expects underlying EBITDA of $10.5–12.5 billion, compared with its previous forecast of $8–10 billion. Its underlying EBIT forecast was raised from $2–4 billion to $4.5–6.5 billion, while expected free cash flow moved from at least negative $1.5 billion to above zero. Maersk’s Q2 presentation attributes the upgrade to stronger demand, congestion and a structurally tighter container market.

Hapag-Lloyd’s rate gains were largely consumed by costs

Hapag-Lloyd also reported a clear improvement from the first quarter, but its year-on-year comparison was considerably weaker.

Group revenue increased by 11% to $5.84 billion and EBITDA edged 1% higher to $829 million. However, EBIT fell by 7% to $176 million, while group profit dropped by 73% to just $83 million.

Its liner shipping business generated revenue of $5.68 billion, 10% more than a year earlier. EBITDA declined slightly to $773 million, while EBIT fell to $153 million.

The reason can be found in the cost figures. Hapag-Lloyd’s transport expenses increased by 8% to $1,265 per TEU. Bunker and emissions costs jumped by 25% to $258 per TEU, while handling and haulage expenses rose by 5%.

Including depreciation and amortisation, total transport expenses reached $1,443 per TEU, compared with an average freight rate of $1,475. That does not represent a direct profit calculation—Hapag-Lloyd also earns revenue not allocated to individual trades—but it illustrates how narrow the operating cushion had become.

The company attributed the increases to the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, longer routes, higher bunker prices, inland transport, insurance and container storage.

Hapag-Lloyd’s terminal operations provided some support. Terminal and Infrastructure revenue increased by 42% to $191 million, partly because of the first full consolidation of the J M Baxi container business. Terminal EBITDA rose by 26% to $55 million. However, this remained too small to transform the group result.

Despite the cost pressure, Hapag-Lloyd raised its full-year guidance in July following the recovery in spot rates. It now expects group EBITDA of $2.7–3.7 billion, compared with $1.1–3.1 billion previously. Its EBIT forecast was lifted from a range of negative $1.5 billion to positive $500 million to a new range of positive $100 million to $1.1 billion. Hapag-Lloyd’s interim report nevertheless warns that both freight rates and the Middle East situation remain highly uncertain.

The real winner was pricing power

The second-quarter figures show that container shipping entered another period in which operational disruption strengthened carriers’ pricing power. Volumes grew at every reporting line, while rates or revenue per container increased by between 9% and 22%. That allowed Maersk and CMA CGM to lift maritime EBITDA by more than 40%.

Yet Hapag-Lloyd’s results demonstrate why higher freight rates should not automatically be interpreted as higher profit. When bunker, insurance, storage and rerouting costs rise almost as quickly as revenue, the financial benefit can be surprisingly limited.

The strongest performers were therefore not simply the carriers that transported the most containers. They were those able to capture spot-rate increases quickly, manage disruption efficiently and prevent higher operating costs from absorbing the additional revenue.