In recent years, CMA CGM has continuously expanded its fleet size, and its financial performance has been catching up with Maersk, aiming to become the world’s second-largest liner company.
Latest financial data shows that in the third quarter of this year, Maersk slightly led with total revenue of $14.2 billion, while CMA CGM’s revenue for the same period was $14 billion, with a minimal gap between the two. Looking back to the same period last year (Q3 2024), both companies reported revenue of $15.8 billion.
Compared to the slight revenue gap, CMA CGM demonstrated a significant advantage in profitability conversion. According to a comparative analysis of the Q3 financial reports of Europe’s three major container shipping giants (CMA CGM, Maersk, and Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd) by shipping media *ShippingWatch*, CMA CGM ranked first with an EBITDA of $3.0 billion, while Maersk’s was $2.7 billion. The difference in profitability is directly reflected in the profit margins: CMA CGM’s EBITDA margin reached 21.0%, Maersk’s was 18.9%, and Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk’s partner in the “Gemini Cooperation” alliance, had a margin of 15.8%.
Since the beginning of this year, the container shipping market has been characterized by declining freight rates and overcapacity, significantly impacting the core shipping businesses of the three major carriers. Among them, both Maersk and CMA CGM saw their shipping business revenues drop by 17.4% year-on-year, but their business performances differed: CMA CGM’s shipping revenue was nearly $9 billion, with cargo volume increasing by 2.3% year-on-year; Maersk’s shipping revenue was $7.8 billion, with cargo volume growth reaching 7%. In terms of shipping business profitability, CMA CGM continued to lead with an EBITDA of $2.2 billion compared to Maersk’s $1.8 billion. Hapag-Lloyd’s shipping business achieved an EBITDA of $710 million during the same period, with a margin of 15.5%. Its management stated that significant one-time costs associated with forming the alliance with Maersk had a certain negative impact on Q3 profitability.
Lars Jensen, a container shipping analyst at Vespucci Maritime, said in an interview: “CMA CGM’s goal is clearly to surpass Maersk and become the world’s second-largest shipping company. Based on the current situation, they are likely to achieve this goal.” He speculated that CMA CGM’s expansion strategy might be inspired by Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) – MSC grew rapidly within just a few years, now operates independently without relying on cooperation with competitors, and firmly holds the top position in global shipping. “It cannot be ruled out that CMA CGM is also moving towards independent operation,” Jensen added.
Maersk has chosen a different development path. After ceding the title of the world’s largest container shipping company to MSC in early 2022, Maersk’s management has repeatedly stated that it will not expand its fleet on a large scale. To gain sufficient coverage in the global container market, Maersk chose to deepen its cooperation with Hapag-Lloyd. “This is a strategic choice made by Maersk, and currently, the cooperation with Hapag-Lloyd is progressing well,” Jensen commented.
Today, four of the world’s top five container shipping companies originate from Europe. The competition among these industry giants is no longer confined to maritime transport; logistics and port terminal businesses are becoming new battlegrounds. Both Maersk and CMA CGM have deployed large-scale logistics and port terminal operations. In contrast, Hapag-Lloyd long resisted entering the logistics field and only began investing in port terminals a few years ago to strengthen control over its own container transport processes.
Specifically, Maersk’s logistics business performed well in Q3, with revenue increasing 2.3% year-on-year to $4.0 billion, and its EBITDA margin improving from 11.1% in the same period last year to 11.7%. The growth of the logistics business is particularly important for Maersk – the company’s strategic goal is to transform into an integrated logistics enterprise. CMA CGM’s logistics business has a larger revenue scale, at $4.6 billion, but it saw a significant decline in Q3, with its EBITDA margin dropping from 9.5% in the same period last year to 9.3%.
In terms of port terminal business, Maersk’s APM Terminals performed steadily in Q3. Although its EBIT margin slightly decreased from 35.8% to 34.6%, both revenue and EBIT achieved growth. CMA CGM’s terminal business showed rapid growth. However, due to its lower business base and the inclusion of diversified businesses such as air freight, its data is not entirely comparable with Maersk’s terminal business. As a key player in terminal operations, CMA CGM’s Q3 terminal revenue increased from $786 million in the same period last year to $1.2 billion, and its EBIT margin improved from 19.2% to 24.6%. In comparison, Hapag-Lloyd’s port business is still in its early stages, with Q3 revenue of only $112 million and an EBIT of $26 million.
Industry insiders point out that as the dimensions of competition in the shipping market expand, the differences in profitability, business structure, and strategic layout between CMA CGM and Maersk will further influence the evolution of the global shipping industry landscape. The development strategies of other shipping companies like Hapag-Lloyd will also inject more variables into the market.
