A new case study by maritime data company VesselBot has found that shippers on the Far East Asia to West Coast North America trade lane may have significantly overpaid on bunker-related surcharges in April and May 2026, with the gap between carrier-published charges and VesselBot’s independent reference cost reaching up to USD 475 per TEU.
The gap between published and actual costs
VesselBot analysed the combined Bunker Adjustment Factor (BAF) and Emergency Fuel Surcharge (EFS) published by Maersk and CMA CGM for the two months. In April 2026, Maersk published a combined charge of USD 605 per TEU, while CMA CGM published USD 710 per TEU. VesselBot’s own Fuel Surcharge Reference Cost for the same trade lane stood at USD 295 per TEU. In May 2026, carrier charges remained unchanged at USD 605 and USD 710 per TEU respectively, while VesselBot’s reference cost fell to USD 235 per TEU.
The implied savings opportunity per TEU was USD 310 for Maersk and USD 415 for CMA CGM in April, widening to USD 370 and USD 475 respectively in May.
Why bunker prices alone do not tell the full story
Bunker prices rose by 63.1% between January and April 2026, from USD 585 per metric tonne to USD 954 per metric tonne, before declining by 7.9% to USD 879 per metric tonne in May. Overall, bunker prices rose 50.3% between January and May.
However, VesselBot’s analysis shows that bunker price movements alone do not accurately reflect the actual fuel cost per TEU on a specific service. While bunker prices fell 7.9% between April and May, VesselBot’s Trade Lane Reference Cost dropped by 20.3%, from USD 295 per TEU to USD 235 per TEU, indicating that voyages were operated more efficiently during that period, further reducing the true fuel cost per TEU.
Two scenarios, same outcome
The study presents two common shipper scenarios. In the first, a contract links BAF adjustments to bunker price fluctuations. Using Maersk’s base BAF of USD 405 per TEU as an example, the 63.1% bunker price rise between January and April would push the surcharge to USD 661 per TEU, and the subsequent 7.9% decline in May would bring it to USD 609 per TEU. Against VesselBot’s reference cost, the combined savings opportunity for 1,000 TEU across both months would reach USD 740,000.
In the second scenario, where a shipper simply accepts prevailing carrier-published BAF and EFS rates, the cost gap is even wider. For 1,000 TEU moved on the Far East to West Coast North America lane, the potential avoidable cost across April and May ranges between USD 680,000 and USD 890,000, depending on the carrier.
The case for independent benchmarking
VesselBot’s Fuel Surcharge Benchmarking Indices incorporate bunker prices at more than 500 ports globally, alongside vessel operational profile, fuel consumption, sailing distance, service execution, routing and utilisation. The company argues that this provides a more accurate and defensible reference point than either bunker index clauses or carrier-published rates alone.
The study concludes that independent fuel cost benchmarking gives procurement teams the tools to challenge excessive charges, quantify avoidable costs and build more transparent surcharge clauses in future carrier contracts.
