First portGlobal rank #78
Osaka
Japan · JPOSA · Asia
Moderate activity60.6/ 100
−12.93% 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 #70
Kobe
Japan · JPUKB · Asia
Moderate activity63.8/ 100
−1.39% 24H movementMODELED · 11m ago
Comparison overview · modeled scenario
Kobe leads in 4 of 6 tracked indicators.
Osaka currently leads the remaining indicators in this modeled comparison.
Momentum
Kobe
Efficiency
Osaka
Growth
Kobe
Reliability
Kobe
Capacity
Osaka
Risk
Kobe
Activity score · modeled
60.6
Osaka
MODERATE
Difference
+3.2
63.8
Kobe
MODERATE
Port Activity (TEU)
Modeled activity series
Time range
OsakaKobe
Performance Shape
Percentile vs all 100 ports (100 = best) · modeled
OsakaKobe
Comparison Scoreboard
Reported throughput · modeled operations
| Metric | Osaka | Kobe | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global rank | #78 | #70 | 8 places apart |
| Monthly TEU · REPORTED | 182K | 220K | Kobe +38K TEU |
| Current activity · MODELED | Moderate | Moderate | Kobe +3.2 pts |
| Activity movement · 24H | −12.93% | −1.39% | Kobe +11.54 pts |
| Vessels alongside · MODELED | 2 | 2 | Even |
| Vessels inbound · MODELED | 3 | 6 | Kobe 3 vessels more |
| Vessels waiting · MODELED | 2 | 1 | Kobe 1 vessels less |
| Average berth wait · MODELED | 4.7h | 5.2h | Osaka 0.5h less |
| Average time at berth · MODELED | 21.7h | 19.5h | Kobe 2.2h less |
| Berth utilization · MODELED | 66.7% | 50% | Osaka 16.7 pts more |
| Congestion / status | Clear | Clear | Same status |
Operations Comparison
MODELED operational sequence
Alongside
2
2
Inbound
3
6
Waiting
2
1
Berth wait
4.7h
5.2h
Time at berth
21.7h
19.5h
Utilization
66.7%
50%
OsakaKobe
Key Differences
Directly derived from current values
- Kobe is handling approximately 38K more monthly TEUs than Osaka.
- Osaka currently shows a 0.5 hour shorter modeled average berth wait.
- Kobe has 1 fewer modeled vessels waiting.
- Osaka has 16.7 percentage points higher modeled berth utilization.
- The ports are 8 places apart in the global throughput ranking.
Regional Context
Monthly TEU among each port's macro-region peers
Osaka vs. AsiaAvg 841K
Shanghai3.91M
Singapore3.19M
Ningbo-Zhoushan2.98M
Shenzhen2.53M
Qingdao2.34M
Kobe 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