Hapag-Lloyd Carried 8% More Cargo in 2025 but Profit Fell 62%. What That Tells Shippers About 2026.

Key Takeaways

Hapag-Lloyd’s 2025 EBIT fell 62% to $1.1 billion despite an 8% volume increase to 13.5 million TEU. Average freight rates dropped 8% to $1,376/TEU.
The carrier’s 2026 EBIT guidance ranges from negative $1.5 billion to positive $0.5 billion. The midpoint implies Hapag-Lloyd’s first operating loss since before the pandemic.
The Middle East conflict is adding $40 million to $50 million per week in operational costs.
Gemini Cooperation with Maersk delivered 90% schedule reliability in 2025. Cost savings from the network are expected to fully materialize in 2026, but that savings is being offset by disruption costs.
For shippers, the signal is: carriers are moving more boxes but earning less per box. That combination, carriers chasing volume to fill overcapacity while costs rise from disruption, creates a market where freight rates are volatile, surcharges are layered on aggressively, and service quality depends heavily on which network a carrier operates within.

Who This Is For

This post is for shippers, freight forwarders, and procurement teams who negotiate ocean freight contracts or manage carrier relationships. Carrier earnings are not just financial news. They reveal where rate pressure is heading, how carriers will behave on surcharges and capacity management, and which operational strategies (like alliance cooperation or terminal investment) are actually delivering results.

The 2025 Numbers

Metric	2025	2024	Change
Revenue	$20.6B (liner)	$20.3B	+2%
Transport volume	13.5M TEU	12.5M TEU	+8%
Average freight rate	$1,376/TEU	$1,496/TEU	-8%
EBITDA	$3.6B	$4.9B	-28%
EBIT	$1.1B	$2.8B	-62%
Group profit	$1.0B	$2.4B	-58%
Proposed dividend	€3.00/share	€8.20/share	-63%

The headline: Hapag-Lloyd grew volumes roughly three times faster than the estimated market growth rate of 2.5-3%. But every incremental TEU was moved at lower margin. Average freight rates fell 8%, and costs rose from tariff-related disruptions, Red Sea rerouting, Gemini network start-up expenses, and port congestion.

CEO Rolf Habben Jansen described 2025 as “a good year” but warned that the operating environment has become “more uncertain than ever.”

Why Carriers Grow Volume When Rates Are Falling

This seems counterintuitive: why would Hapag-Lloyd pursue 8% volume growth when rates were declining? The answer reveals how the container shipping market works in a capacity-surplus environment.

Fleet overcapacity is the underlying issue. The ordering spree during the 2021-2022 pandemic-era boom delivered a wave of new vessels into a market where demand growth slowed. With more ship capacity than cargo to fill it, carriers face a choice: let vessels sail with empty slots (and absorb the fixed cost of the voyage), or cut rates to attract volume and at least cover variable costs.

Hapag-Lloyd chose volume. The Gemini Cooperation with Maersk gave Hapag-Lloyd access to a larger joint network, enabling it to compete for cargo on more trade lanes. The 8% growth outpaced the market, meaning Hapag-Lloyd took share from competitors. But the price was an 8% decline in average rate per TEU.

For shippers, this matters because it explains carrier behavior. When carriers are in volume-chase mode, shippers have more negotiating leverage on base freight rates. But carriers compensate by adding surcharges, tightening free time, and adjusting accessorial charges. The base rate drops; the total landed cost may not.

The 2026 Outlook: Operating Losses on the Table

Hapag-Lloyd’s 2026 guidance is strikingly wide:

EBITDA: $1.1 billion to $3.1 billion
EBIT: Negative $1.5 billion to positive $0.5 billion

The width of that range reflects genuine uncertainty. At the low end, Hapag-Lloyd would post its first operating loss since the pre-pandemic trough. At the high end, it barely breaks even at the operating level.

The key variables driving the range:

Middle East conflict costs. Hapag-Lloyd cited $40-50 million per week in additional operating costs from the Hormuz/Middle East disruption. Over a full year, that is $2.0-2.6 billion in incremental costs, enough to wipe out the EBITDA entirely if rates do not recover. Over just the first quarter, the conflict has already added several hundred million in unplanned expenses.

Freight rate trajectory. Rates could recover if capacity tightens (from disruption-related vessel repositioning, blank sailings, or demand recovery) or they could fall further if overcapacity persists and demand weakens. The emergency fuel surcharges carriers have implemented partially offset rate erosion, but they also increase the all-in cost for shippers, which can suppress demand.

Gemini network savings. Hapag-Lloyd expects cost synergies from the Gemini Cooperation to fully materialize in 2026. But those savings were designed for a market where the network operated on planned routes, not one where services are being rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope and transshipment hubs like Salalah are intermittently offline.

What This Signals for Shippers

Surcharges will stay aggressive

A carrier guiding toward potential operating losses has every incentive to maximize surcharge recovery. Emergency fuel surcharges, war risk surcharges, congestion surcharges, and inland fuel surcharges are not going away while carriers are fighting to stay profitable. Expect carriers to resist rollbacks and push for upward revisions when market conditions justify them.

Contract rate negotiations may favor shippers on base rates, but total cost is what matters

If overcapacity persists, base freight rates on new contracts may stay competitive. But shippers should focus on the total cost structure: base rate + fuel surcharges + emergency surcharges + inland charges + demurrage/detention terms. A low base rate with aggressive surcharges can cost more than a higher base rate with tighter surcharge caps.

Schedule reliability is a differentiator

Hapag-Lloyd’s claim of 90% schedule reliability through Gemini is notable in a market where the industry average has been significantly lower. For shippers where transit time predictability matters (perishables, JIT manufacturing, retail replenishment), the network a carrier operates within may matter more than the headline rate.

Carrier financial health affects service quality

A carrier posting operating losses may reduce service frequency, consolidate routes, defer vessel maintenance, or slow-steam more aggressively to cut costs. These are not theoretical risks. They are standard carrier responses to financial pressure. Shippers with concentrated exposure to a single carrier should monitor that carrier’s financial trajectory.

Operational Note: When carriers adjust service networks to manage costs, the changes often appear as schedule modifications, port omissions, or transit time adjustments that are not always communicated proactively. Tracking vessel movements against published schedules helps operations teams catch these changes early, before they become missed delivery windows or stranded cargo.