First portGlobal rank #34
Cai Mep
Vietnam · VNCMT · Asia
Weak activity52.0/ 100
−21.09% 24H movementMODELED · 48m ago
Portflow / Intelligence
Port VS
Compare activity, momentum, efficiency, risk and long-term performance across the global port network.
First port
Second port
Saved pairs stay on this device.
Portflow research view · modeled scenario
Second portGlobal rank #23
Ho Chi Minh City
Vietnam · VNSGN · Asia
Strong activity73.5/ 100
+21.89% 24H movementMODELED · 54m ago
Comparison overview · modeled scenario
Cai Mep leads in 3 of 6 tracked indicators.
Ho Chi Minh City currently leads the remaining indicators in this modeled comparison.
Momentum
Ho Chi Minh City
Efficiency
Cai Mep
Growth
Ho Chi Minh City
Reliability
Cai Mep
Capacity
Ho Chi Minh City
Risk
Cai Mep
Activity score · modeled
52.0
Cai Mep
MODERATE
Difference
+21.5
73.5
Ho Chi Minh City
POSITIVE
Port Activity (TEU)
Modeled activity series
Time range
Cai MepHo Chi Minh City
Performance Shape
Percentile vs all 100 ports (100 = best) · modeled
Cai MepHo Chi Minh City
Comparison Scoreboard
Reported throughput · modeled operations
| Metric | Cai Mep | Ho Chi Minh City | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global rank | #34 | #23 | 11 places apart |
| Monthly TEU · REPORTED | 473K | 659K | Ho Chi Minh City +186K TEU |
| Current activity · MODELED | Weak | Strong | Ho Chi Minh City +21.5 pts |
| Activity movement · 24H | −21.09% | +21.89% | Ho Chi Minh City +42.98 pts |
| Vessels alongside · MODELED | 4 | 10 | Ho Chi Minh City 6 vessels more |
| Vessels inbound · MODELED | 6 | 31 | Ho Chi Minh City 25 vessels more |
| Vessels waiting · MODELED | 2 | 6 | Cai Mep 4 vessels less |
| Average berth wait · MODELED | 7.1h | 11h | Cai Mep 3.9h less |
| Average time at berth · MODELED | 22.9h | 13.5h | Ho Chi Minh City 9.4h less |
| Berth utilization · MODELED | 44.4% | 83.3% | Ho Chi Minh City 38.9 pts more |
| Congestion / status | Building | Building | Same status |
Operations Comparison
MODELED operational sequence
Alongside
4
10
Inbound
6
31
Waiting
2
6
Berth wait
7.1h
11h
Time at berth
22.9h
13.5h
Utilization
44.4%
83.3%
Cai MepHo Chi Minh City
Key Differences
Directly derived from current values
- Ho Chi Minh City is handling approximately 186K more monthly TEUs than Cai Mep.
- Cai Mep currently shows a 3.9 hour shorter modeled average berth wait.
- Cai Mep has 4 fewer modeled vessels waiting.
- Ho Chi Minh City has 38.9 percentage points higher modeled berth utilization.
- The ports are 11 places apart in the global throughput ranking.
Regional Context
Monthly TEU among each port's macro-region peers
Cai Mep vs. AsiaAvg 841K
Shanghai3.91M
Singapore3.19M
Ningbo-Zhoushan2.98M
Shenzhen2.53M
Qingdao2.34M
Ho Chi Minh City vs. AsiaAvg 841K
Shanghai3.91M
Singapore3.19M
Ningbo-Zhoushan2.98M
Shenzhen2.53M
Qingdao2.34M
Continue exploring
Operational and activity values are MODELED · monthly and annual throughput are REPORTED · Methodology