Maersk reported third-quarter results on November 5 and raised full-year guidance for the third time in 20261, 2. Revenue rose 27% to $18.1 billion and EBITDA reached $4.7 billion, against $2.7 billion a year earlier, while EBIT more than doubled to $3.3 billion1. Underlying EBITDA guidance for the year is now $14 billion to $14.5 billion, from $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion. The EBIT range moved to $8 billion to $8.5 billion from $4.5 billion to $6.5 billion1. Expected free cash flow is more than $3 billion1.
The lift came from price, not volume
Ocean revenue rose 37% to $12.6 billion and Ocean EBIT reached $2.6 billion, against $567 million a year earlier1. Price did the work. The average loaded freight rate rose about 46% to $3,287 per FFE, a forty-foot equivalent box, while loaded volumes fell 0.8% to 3.37 million FFE and vessel utilisation was 96%1.
Maersk linked the rate rise to capacity constraints. It cited typhoons in East Asia, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and port waiting times that peaked at 16.6 hours in August, the highest since January 20231. It said the Shanghai Containerised Freight Index rose 46% during the third quarter from the second1.
The mix matters. A carrier earning more per box on fewer boxes has no volume-led reason to discount. It manages capacity instead, and that is uneven. Drewry counted six blank sailings on the transpacific for next week, up from five, but four on Asia-Europe, down from eight, which it said indicates more effective capacity3.
A narrower range, a higher floor
The new range sits above the old one at both ends, and it is narrower: $14 billion to $14.5 billion against $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion1. Seatrade Maritime reported the upgrade as adding up to $4 billion to full-year earnings4.
A tighter range at a higher level points to more visibility over the final quarter than at the previous guidance update. The reports reviewed do not break out nine-month underlying EBITDA, so the split between the third-quarter result and a higher fourth-quarter expectation cannot be read off them.
Maersk said the outlook assumes global container market volume growth of about 4% for the year. It named geopolitics, freight rates and fuel costs as the main uncertainties1. It gives no 2027 rate assumption in the reported guidance; that conversation belongs to the 2027 contract round.
Spot benchmarks sit above the group average
Maersk publishes one blended average loaded rate across all its trades1. It does not report a contract and spot split, or realised rates by lane, so any lane comparison is an indication rather than a like-for-like.
Two Drewry spot benchmarks are higher than Maersk's group average. Drewry assessed Shanghai to Rotterdam at $3,686 per 40ft on October 29, up 1% on the week, and Shanghai to Los Angeles at $7,514, down 6%3. Its composite index fell 3% to $4,429 per 40ft3.
That gap suggests carriers will open the 2027 round above current contract levels on those lanes, although a shipper's own rate may sit either side of the group average. Carriers can point to the 46% rise in the SCFI during the third quarter1. Shippers can point to Drewry's view that transpacific rates will fall next week as US import demand eases. The National Retail Federation forecasts an 11% month-on-month drop in US ocean imports in November3. Drewry expects Asia-Europe rates to stay stable next week and says it is uncertain whether the higher FAK rates announced for November will hold3.
Rivals, fuel and coming capacity
Splash247 headlined its report "Maersk upgrades profit outlook despite underperforming rivals", but the excerpt reviewed does not say on which measure2. The nearest ocean-only comparison is ONE's fiscal second quarter, July to September, and it does not show a rival earning more in absolute terms. ONE reported EBITDA of $1.99 billion and operating profit of $1.36 billion on 3.4 million TEU5. Maersk reported group EBITDA of $4.7 billion and Ocean EBIT of $2.6 billion1.
The units differ. Maersk reports per FFE and ONE per TEU, so per-box profitability is not directly comparable1, 5. ONE's average rate was $1,709 per TEU, up from $1,252, and its average bunker price $749 a tonne against $5185. Maersk also earns outside the ocean leg. Terminals revenue reached a record $1.52 billion, although EBIT fell to $493 million on a 2025 impairment reversal. Logistics revenue was $4.5 billion at a 5.8% EBIT margin1.
The competitive read is that neither carrier faces margin pressure that would push it to buy volume with price. ONE lifted its full-year EBITDA forecast to $4.7 billion from $3.6 billion. It expects spot rates to ease in the second half but remain above its earlier assumptions, with a modest rise before Chinese New Year5. It also said the gradual return of ships to the Suez Canal pressured Asia-Europe rates5.
New supply is distant. Maersk ordered 26 dual-fuel ships of 18,600 TEU each for delivery in 2029 and 20301. Capacity is returning sooner through Suez, where Drewry counted 62 transits in the week to October 29, the highest weekly level this year3.
Three checks before signing
First, split fixed from indexed. Maersk's group average sits below both spot lanes, so a fixed rate captures today's level, while an index-linked one follows the SCFI either way1, 3.
Second, rebuild the fuel clause. Maersk's average bunker price rose 49% year on year while its consumption fell 6.3%, partly on the partial Suez return1, and ONE paid $749 a tonne against $5185. Brent was $107.03 a barrel on November 3, down 21% from a month earlier but up 62.7% from a year earlier6. Check the reference port and index, the trigger, the review frequency and whether the adjustment works both ways.
Third, size the volume commitment to a network that may change. If more services return through Suez, transit times shorten and effective capacity rises, which ONE said has already pressured Asia-Europe rates5. Ask for rollover terms, a tolerance band around committed volumes and a mid-term review. Maersk does not disclose the share of its volumes on long-term contracts in the material reviewed, so treat carrier figures on contract coverage as claims to test rather than benchmarks1.