Cargo is being reorganized in Manzanillo; SSA and Contecon strengthen their dominance as the shipping map changes

The port of Manzanillo, Mexico’s busiest for containerized cargo, closed the first half of 2026 with near double-digit growth in container traffic, but this aggregate figure only tells part of the story. Behind the increased volume lay a deeper transformation: cargo became even more concentrated at the SSA Marine Mexico and Contecon Manzanillo terminals , while TIMSA ( owned by Hutchison Ports ) and OCUPA (also owned by SSA) lost market share, and several shipping lines significantly altered their presence at each terminal.

Between January and June 2026, Manzanillo handled 1,168,785 boxes, equivalent to 2,071,263 TEUs (20-foot containers) , compared to 1,068,563 boxes and 1,884,028 TEUs for the same period in 2025. This represented annual increases of 9.4% and 9.9%, respectively, according to data from the National Port System Administration (Asipona) Manzanillo .

Manzanillo’s total movement

The port added 187,235 TEUs in one year. However, the growth was not driven by imports, traditionally linked to the arrival of goods from Asia, but by operations classified as exports and by transshipments .

Exports and transshipment contribute almost all of the growth

Imports reached 847,841 TEUs, just 10,779 more than a year earlier, representing a 1.3 percent increase. Exports, on the other hand, rose by 132,843 TEUs, equivalent to 17.1 percent, while transshipments added 43,614 TEUs, growing by 16.2 percent .

Movement by type of operation

Exports accounted for approximately 71% of the additional volume, while transshipments contributed another 23%. Imports generated less than 6% of the net increase.

However, the export category should be interpreted with caution. Port statistics include both full and empty containers , so the increase cannot be directly equated with a similar growth in Mexican goods shipped abroad.

The composition of the activity also changed. Imports reduced their share from 44.4% to 40.9%; exports increased from 41.3% to 44% and became the main operating component; and transshipments rose from 14.3% to 15.1%.

SSA and Contecon capture more volume than the port grew.

The main transformation occurred in the distribution of cargo between terminals.

SSA increased from 806,523 to 921,028 TEUs , a rise of 114,505 units or 14.2 percent. Contecon advanced from 740,602 to 854,298 TEUs, with an additional 113,696 and an expansion of 15.4 percent.

Together, both terminals added 228,201 TEUs , an amount exceeding the net growth of the entire Manzanillo port. The difference is explained by the declines recorded at TIMSA and OCUPA, which together lost 40,967 TEUs.

Movement by terminal

TIMSA went from 174,135 to 152,130 TEUs , while OCUPA fell from 162,769 to 143,807. The two declines partially offset the growth of the leading terminals.

Participation by terminal

SSA and Contecon increased their combined stake from 82.1% to 85.7%, while TIMSA and OCUPA reduced theirs from 17.9% to 14.3%.

The figures confirm a reconcentration of cargo , although they don’t, on their own, allow us to conclude that specific services have migrated directly between terminals. To demonstrate such shifts, it would be necessary to review itineraries, frequencies, alliances, and the commercial decisions of each shipping company. What the data does show is that the two largest facilities grew at the same time that the others lost volume and relative market share.

ONE retains its port leadership

In the consolidated figures for Manzanillo, the Japanese company ONE led the movement with 337,577 TEUs, equivalent to 16.3% of the total. Hapag-Lloyd came in second, with 293,836 TEUs; followed by MSC , with 264,764; and Maersk , with 243,074.

CMA CGM ranked fifth, with 184,147 TEU; Cosco Shipping reached 177,615 and Evergreen closed the group of the seven largest with 144,883 TEU.

Top 20 shipping lines in Manzanillo, January-June 2026

The first four shipping lines accounted for approximately 55% of the traffic ; when CMA CGM, Cosco, and Evergreen were added, the top seven accounted for roughly 79.5%. The top 20 represented almost 98% of the port volume.

The four largest shipping companies do not explain the expansion

Manzanillo’s growth was not uniformly matched by its four largest operators.

ONE was the only one to advance, although by just 1.9 percent. Hapag-Lloyd declined 2.6 percent, MSC fell 7.3 percent, and Maersk dropped 11.4 percent.

Evolution of the four main shipping companies

These companies collectively handled almost 54,000 fewer TEUs, even though the port grew by more than 187,000. Their combined market share decreased from around 63.3% to 55%.

The data reveals that the expansion came from a broader base of operators, particularly CMA CGM, Cosco, Evergreen and various medium-sized Asian shipping lines, in addition to changes in cargo distribution by terminal.

SSA: Three shipping companies account for almost 84% of the movement

The SSA structure shows a high concentration in ONE, Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk .

ONE increased its TEU capacity from 224,456 during the first half of 2025 to 274,782 in 2026, a 22.4 percent increase. With this result, it displaced Hapag-Lloyd as the terminal’s main shipping line.

Hapag-Lloyd increased 8.5% to 259,477 TEUs, while Maersk advanced 19.4% to 236,383 TEUs. The three companies accounted for 770,642 TEUs, equivalent to 83.7% of SSA’s total movement.

MSC also significantly increased its activity, going from 31,058 to 86,009 TEUs, while ZIM rose from 3,960 to 46,353. HMM was the only line in the group with a contraction, losing nearly 2,000 TEUs.

SSA’s net growth cannot be attributed solely to one company. ONE contributed an additional 50,326 TEUs , Maersk 38,471, and Hapag-Lloyd 20,249; these were complemented by strong gains from MSC and ZIM.

ONE also exhibited a distinct operational profile due to its high transshipment activity. Of its 274,782 TEUs at SSA, 144,991 corresponded to connections between maritime services, more than half of its volume within the terminal.

Contecon: CMA CGM retains first place despite setback

Contecon presented a different picture. Its three main clients were CMA CGM, MSC, and Cosco , which together accounted for 517,976 TEUs, equivalent to 60.6% of the terminal’s activity.

CMA CGM led the movement with 183,947 TEUs; followed by MSC, with 175,796; and Cosco, with 158,233. Wan Hai was in fourth position, with 77,261 TEUs; ONE reached 62,397 and PIL , 53,518.

Main shipping companies at Contecon, January-June 2026

CMA CGM’s leadership was not associated with expansion. The shipping company’s volume fell from 208,114 to 183,947 TEUs, a drop of 11.6 percent. MSC also saw a decrease, from 209,166 to 175,796 TEUs, equivalent to a 16 percent decline.

In 2025, MSC had surpassed CMA CGM by just over 1,000 TEUs. In 2026, CMA CGM took first place because its contraction was less than that recorded by MSC.

Evolution of the main shipping companies of Contecon

Contecon grew 15.4% despite CMA CGM and MSC jointly losing 57,537 TEUs. The advance was mainly supported by Wan Hai, which added 67,615 TEUs; PIL, with an additional 53,194 on a marginal basis; HMM, with 18,834; Cosco, with 16,940; and ONE, with 8,811.

This performance demonstrates a significant restructuring of the terminal’s portfolio . While its two largest historical clients declined, a combination of Asian carriers more than offset those losses.

Two terminals with different profiles

SSA and Contecon shared growth rates exceeding 14%, but their shipping structures were different.

In SSA, ONE, Hapag-Lloyd, and Maersk accounted for almost 84% of the volume. Contecon showed a distribution less dependent on a single line, although CMA CGM, MSC, and Cosco accounted for more than 60%.

SSA strengthened its position with growth from its three largest clients, in addition to MSC and ZIM. At Contecon, the opposite occurred: the two leading shipping lines declined, and the increase came from operators in secondary positions during 2025.

The result combines a greater physical concentration of cargo in two terminals with a relative diversification of growth among shipping companies.

The transpacific market adds volatility to the realignment

The transformation in Manzanillo occurred during one of the most volatile periods in recent history for services between Asia, Mexico, and the West Coast of South America . During June, rates shifted dramatically in just a few weeks due to sharp adjustments in space availability and congestion at origin and transshipment ports.

The Eternity Group Mexico EAX index closed May at $3,488 per FEU (40-foot equivalent unit) , but during the first weeks of June it climbed to a high of $6,500. The surge was related to a contraction in supply inherited from the previous month, when the corridor registered a capacity deficit of up to 24,000 TEUs.

The situation reversed during the second half of June. Congestion created an injection of space that shifted the balance from a deficit to a surplus of 42,000 TEUs, causing tariffs to correct toward the $5,000 per FEU mark. The speed of this shift demonstrated the sensitivity of prices to any weekly change in capacity deployment.

The period also coincided with the global delivery of new container ships with a combined capacity of 183,089 TEU. CMA CGM led the way by taking delivery of three vessels totaling 45,460 TEU, while OOCL added the largest single vessel of the month, with a capacity exceeding 24,000 TEU.

The fleet expansion opened the possibility of tariff stabilization during July, with levels close to four thousand dollars per FEU, although this was contingent on weekly capacity remaining above 150,000 TEUs. Even so, the cost reduction does not eliminate the operational risks associated with schedule changes, congestion, weather, and reduced reliability of transit times.

In this context, Manzanillo’s 9.9% growth did not occur under stable conditions. It took place amidst a temporary shortage of space, abrupt tariff increases, subsequent capacity recovery, and ongoing adjustments to shipping services.

Port statistics and freight rates reveal two sides of the same market. While Manzanillo processed more containers, shipping lines adjusted capacity, port calls, and equipment allocation to adapt to a changing corridor. This underscores the importance of logistics planning : higher port volume alone does not guarantee stable space, reliable schedules, or predictable rates.

The first half of the year thus left a new operational map: SSA and Contecon concentrated 85.7% of the cargo; TIMSA and OCUPA lost ground; ONE maintained its port leadership; CMA CGM led Contecon despite falling behind; and shipping companies such as Wan Hai, PIL, HMM and Cosco gained relevance amid unprecedented volatility in transpacific freight rates.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @Enrique Duarte Rionda / @GrupoT21