The world’s top container ports show why Europe feels disruption differently

Global container trade recovered strongly in 2024, reaching a record 931.8 million TEUs, a 7.8 per cent increase after several years of subdued growth. However, a new global ranking of container ports shows that headline volumes alone no longer determine how smoothly supply chains operate. For European logistics companies and road hauliers, port performance under disruption has become a decisive factor.

According to the Leading Container Ports of the World 2025 report by DNV and Menon Economics, container ports handle more than 80 per cent of global non-bulk merchandise trade. Any disruption at these nodes is quickly felt inland, through longer waiting times, congestion at port gates, tighter driver schedules and rising transport costs.

The rebound in container volumes comes against a backdrop of persistent instability in global shipping. The crisis in the Red Sea has forced most large container vessels to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, extending Asia–Europe and Asia–US East Coast transit times by up to two weeks. Vessel transits through the Red Sea fell by 56 per cent, creating uneven arrival patterns at ports and adding pressure to terminal operations.

For European ports and their hinterlands, this has translated into congestion peaks and unpredictable container flows. For road hauliers, the consequences are familiar: delayed pickups, longer turnaround times and reduced planning certainty.

A broader way of ranking ports

The Leading Container Ports of the World 2025 report evaluates 160 container ports worldwide, identifying the top 20 through a combination of objective performance data and expert assessments from senior executives at the world’s leading shipping lines, representing more than 90 per cent of global containerised cargo.

Instead of focusing mainly on throughput, the ranking is based on five equally weighted pillars:

• Enablers (governance, infrastructure and institutional capacity)
• Connectivity and customer value
• Productivity
• Sustainability
• Overall economic impact

The message is clear: scale alone is no longer enough. Ports must perform consistently across governance, efficiency, connectivity and environmental performance to remain reliable in volatile conditions.

The world’s leading container ports

1. Singapore – global benchmark for resilience and connectivity

Singapore ranks first overall, leading across all five pillars. In 2024, the port handled 41.1 million TEUs, with more than 75 per cent linked to transhipment activity. This hub-and-spoke model allows Singapore to redistribute cargo efficiently across global networks.

A cornerstone of its strategy is Tuas Port, a highly automated terminal that began operations in 2022 and is expected to handle more than 65 million TEUs annually once fully completed in the 2040s. Investments in alternative-fuel bunkering, shore power and green shipping corridors underpin Singapore’s position as the most resilient global container hub.

2. Shanghai – the world’s busiest container port

Shanghai ranks second overall and remains the world’s busiest container port, handling a record 51.5 million TEUs in 2024. Its scale, deep-water access and integration with China’s manufacturing base are supported by extensive automation, including the fully automated Yangshan Phase IV terminal.

Shanghai also leads in connectivity, serving more than 700 ports worldwide, and has invested heavily in sustainability measures such as shore power and alternative-fuel bunkering.

3. Ningbo-Zhoushan – fastest-growing global hub

Ningbo-Zhoushan, ranked third, handled 39.3 million TEUs in 2024, recording a 26 per cent increase over three years. Extensive infrastructure investment, deep-water terminals and growing rail connectivity have strengthened its role as both a gateway and transhipment hub.

4. Busan – Northeast Asia’s logistics powerhouse

Ranked fourth, Busan handled 24.4 million TEUs in 2024 and plays a key role as a transhipment hub linking China, Japan and South Korea. Digital systems and large-scale infrastructure projects, including the Jinhae New Port, have helped reduce truck waiting times and improve coordination with inland transport.

5. Shenzhen – gateway to southern China

Shenzhen completes the top five, handling 33.4 million TEUs in 2024. Its proximity to southern China’s manufacturing clusters and continued investment in automation support steady growth and operational efficiency.

Europe’s position in the global ranking

While Asian ports dominate the top of the global ranking, the report also highlights several European container ports that play a crucial role in global and regional supply chains.

Rotterdam – Europe’s strongest all-round performer

Rotterdam emerges as the highest-ranked European container port and remains Europe’s largest by throughput. Although it cannot match Asian mega-ports in volume, Rotterdam scores strongly across multiple pillars, particularly for governance, productivity and hinterland connectivity.

Its extensive network of inland waterways, combined with rail and road links, allows containers to move efficiently into the European hinterland. Investments in digital twin technology, shore power and alternative-fuel infrastructure further support operational reliability.

For European road hauliers, Rotterdam’s performance is especially relevant: efficient inland flows reduce congestion at terminals and improve planning certainty across north-west Europe.

Antwerp-Bruges – strong governance and hinterland reach

Antwerp-Bruges is highlighted as another key European container port, performing well in the Enablers pillar. The port benefits from strong governance, significant infrastructure capacity and extensive hinterland connections, positioning it as a major alternative gateway for north-west Europe.

Hamburg – rail-focused but more exposed to disruption

Hamburg remains one of Europe’s most important container hubs, particularly due to its strong rail connectivity. The port is also active in sustainability initiatives and green shipping corridors. However, its reliance on river access makes it more vulnerable to disruptions, a factor that has become increasingly relevant in recent years.

Valencia – Mediterranean gateway

Valencia is identified as a key Mediterranean container port, serving southern Europe and acting as an important hub for regional and intercontinental trade. Growing transhipment activity has strengthened its position within the European port landscape.

Why Europe has no Singapore-style mega hub

One of the most striking conclusions of the global ranking is not which port comes first, but what Europe lacks: a single, dominant container hub comparable to Singapore.

Singapore’s position at the top of the ranking is built on a unique combination of factors that are difficult to replicate in Europe. The port functions primarily as a pure transhipment hub, handling more than three quarters of its container volume by redistributing cargo between global trade lanes. Its location on the main East–West shipping corridor allows it to consolidate traffic from Asia, Europe, the Americas and Oceania into one highly centralised system.

Europe, by contrast, operates a multi-gateway model. Instead of one dominant hub, container traffic is spread across several ports, including Rotterdam, Antwerp-Bruges, Hamburg and Mediterranean gateways such as Valencia. These ports primarily serve large domestic and regional hinterlands, rather than acting as neutral transhipment hubs for global shipping networks.

Geography is a key factor. European ports are located closer to final consumption markets and industrial centres, which encourages direct gateway traffic rather than large-scale transhipment. This makes European supply chains more regionally distributed, but also limits the emergence of a single mega hub capable of dominating global container flows.

Governance structures also differ significantly. Singapore benefits from highly centralised port governance, long-term planning and coordinated infrastructure development. In Europe, port governance is fragmented across national and regional authorities, each with its own regulatory frameworks, investment priorities and labour models. While this diversity supports competition, it also makes deep centralisation difficult.

From an inland transport perspective, Europe’s port system is designed to move containers inland quickly, rather than concentrating them at one maritime node. Extensive rail networks, inland waterways and road corridors allow cargo to be distributed across the continent without relying on a single super-hub.

For European hauliers, this model has both advantages and drawbacks. It reduces dependency on one port, limiting systemic risk, but it also means that performance differences between ports matter more. When disruptions occur, the ability of individual ports to handle peaks and move cargo inland efficiently becomes critical.

The global ranking reflects this reality. While Europe does not have a Singapore-style mega hub, it relies instead on a network of strong, but specialised ports, where reliability, hinterland access and governance increasingly determine competitiveness.

Why sustainability and governance matter for road transport

One of the report’s key findings is that ports investing in automation, digitalisation and low-emission infrastructure tend to cope better with disruption. Shore power, alternative-fuel bunkering and smart traffic management systems reduce congestion and vessel waiting times, with knock-on benefits for road transport.

Governance is equally important. Ports with transparent management structures, stable labour relations and long-term investment strategies are better positioned to maintain smooth operations, reducing the risk of unexpected delays for hauliers.