Freight rates have risen for the third consecutive week, with the SCFI edging up to 3,681 points. On the Europe route, the upward momentum has eased; on the U.S. route, rates are retracing from their recent highs; and on the South America route, rates have fallen by 8.6%.

On October 23, the Shanghai Shipping Exchange reported the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) at 3,681.34 points, up 1.76 points from the previous period—a weekly increase of 0.05%—marking the third consecutive week of modest gains. From an index‑level perspective, the container shipping market has not shown any significant weakening overall; however, supply‑demand imbalances across different routes have become more pronounced: growth on Europe‑bound routes has slowed, U.S.-bound rates have pulled back from elevated levels, and South America‑bound rates have posted a more noticeable decline. The slight uptick in the freight index largely reflects structural divergence among routes rather than synchronized strength across all segments.

The decline in U.S. routes has narrowed, and the high-level correction trend persists.
         On U.S. routes, the spot rate from Shanghai to major West Coast ports stood at USD 7,521 per FEU, down 0.05% week over week; the rate to major East Coast ports was USD 10,388 per FEU, down 0.16% week over week. Both East Coast and West Coast services have now declined for the second consecutive week, though the magnitude of this week’s pullback has narrowed compared with the previous period. Overall, U.S. rates remain at relatively high levels, with the recent correction largely reflecting a consolidation at elevated levels following earlier gains. Future trends will depend on factors such as cargo volume support during the peak season’s final stretch, carriers’ capacity management, and port operational efficiency.

The upward momentum on European routes has slowed, and the drivers behind price hikes in the Mediterranean remain to be seen.
         On European routes, the spot rate from Shanghai to major European ports stood at USD 2,351 per TEU, up 0.69% week-on-week; the rate to the Mediterranean was USD 3,255 per TEU, up 0.15% week-on-week. Notably, on the Mediterranean route, after a surge of USD 248 in the previous period, this week’s increase was just USD 5, leaving the sustainability of further rate hikes still uncertain. While European rates have remained on a modest upward trajectory, the narrowing of gains suggests limited market appetite for additional price hikes. Whether carriers can successfully implement further increases will depend on booking trends and actual cargo volumes.

South American routes have seen a noticeable pullback, while short-haul routes are mixed.
         Other routes posted mixed results. The Shanghai–Persian Gulf basic‑port rate stood at USD 6,499 per TEU, up 0.39% week over week, continuing a modest uptrend from elevated levels; the Shanghai–Australia/New Zealand basic‑port rate was USD 2,542 per TEU, down 0.43% weekly; and the Shanghai–South America basic‑port rate fell to USD 5,053 per TEU, a 8.61% weekly decline—the largest pullback among this week’s major routes. The sharp drop in South American rates reflects a rebalancing of supply and demand after earlier peak rates.

         On short-haul routes, the spot rate from Shanghai to major Southeast Asian ports stood at USD 1,146 per TEU, down USD 10, a weekly decline of 0.87%; the rate to South Korea was USD 376 per TEU, up USD 11, a weekly increase of 3.0%; and rates to Japan’s Kansai and Kanto regions were quoted at USD 326 and USD 335 per TEU, respectively.

Port congestion and weather disruptions remain key variables.
         On October 19, DHL Global Forwarding analyzed that global port congestion currently amounts to approximately 3.8 million TEUs. Adverse weather conditions have exacerbated vessel backlogs and schedule disruptions, with on-time performance at some key gateway ports falling below one-third. Port congestion not only undermines schedule reliability but can also drive up costs across other supply-chain segments through delays in port stays, container rejections, and inefficient transshipment connections. For shippers, current rate fluctuations should be assessed in conjunction with schedule reliability, port operational efficiency, and destination‑port connectivity; relying solely on index movements to gauge actual transportation costs is insufficient. Shippers are advised to factor booking rates alongside schedule reliability and destination‑port congestion when planning shipments, and to build in ample delivery buffers for time‑sensitive cargo.