First portGlobal rank #21
Laem Chabang
Thailand · THLCH · Asia
Moderate activity64.8/ 100
−3.71% 24H movementMODELED · 41m 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
Laem Chabang 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
Laem Chabang
Growth
Ho Chi Minh City
Reliability
Laem Chabang
Capacity
Ho Chi Minh City
Risk
Laem Chabang
Activity score · modeled
64.8
Laem Chabang
MODERATE
Difference
+8.7
73.5
Ho Chi Minh City
POSITIVE
Port Activity (TEU)
Modeled activity series
Time range
Laem ChabangHo Chi Minh City
Performance Shape
Percentile vs all 100 ports (100 = best) · modeled
Laem ChabangHo Chi Minh City
Comparison Scoreboard
Reported throughput · modeled operations
| Metric | Laem Chabang | Ho Chi Minh City | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global rank | #21 | #23 | 2 places apart |
| Monthly TEU · REPORTED | 708K | 659K | Laem Chabang +50K TEU |
| Current activity · MODELED | Moderate | Strong | Ho Chi Minh City +8.7 pts |
| Activity movement · 24H | −3.71% | +21.89% | Ho Chi Minh City +25.61 pts |
| Vessels alongside · MODELED | 7 | 10 | Ho Chi Minh City 3 vessels more |
| Vessels inbound · MODELED | 21 | 31 | Ho Chi Minh City 10 vessels more |
| Vessels waiting · MODELED | 3 | 6 | Laem Chabang 3 vessels less |
| Average berth wait · MODELED | 6.8h | 11h | Laem Chabang 4.2h less |
| Average time at berth · MODELED | 16.7h | 13.5h | Ho Chi Minh City 3.2h less |
| Berth utilization · MODELED | 46.7% | 83.3% | Ho Chi Minh City 36.6 pts more |
| Congestion / status | Clear | Building | Different status |
Operations Comparison
MODELED operational sequence
Alongside
7
10
Inbound
21
31
Waiting
3
6
Berth wait
6.8h
11h
Time at berth
16.7h
13.5h
Utilization
46.7%
83.3%
Laem ChabangHo Chi Minh City
Key Differences
Directly derived from current values
- Laem Chabang is handling approximately 50K more monthly TEUs than Ho Chi Minh City.
- Laem Chabang currently shows a 4.2 hour shorter modeled average berth wait.
- Laem Chabang has 3 fewer modeled vessels waiting.
- Ho Chi Minh City has 36.6 percentage points higher modeled berth utilization.
- The ports are 2 places apart in the global throughput ranking.
Regional Context
Monthly TEU among each port's macro-region peers
Laem Chabang 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