Most tenders ask which carrier gets each lane. Fewer ask which contract structure does. Here's how to split volume across fixed, index-linked, and spot, lane by lane, not portfolio-wide.
Most annual tenders ask one question: which carrier should receive which lane? Increasingly, leading procurement teams are asking a second question: which commercial structure belongs on each lane? Those are different decisions, and the shift is already showing up in the data. Those are different decisions. Some shippers have already moved from a traditional 90/10 contract-to-spot split toward 80/20 or 75/25, committing more volume to contracts overall rather than leaving it to the spot market.
Within that shift, index-linked contracts are increasingly where the new volume is landing, now that a transaction-based index gives shippers a reliable benchmark to actually build one on. In fact, at a recent NYSHEX forum, several of the largest global ocean carriers reported double-digit percentages of their own contract portfolios are now linked to indices.
Every contract type trades certainty for flexibility differently. A fixed rate gives budget predictability but drifts from the market over time. An index-linked rate stays aligned with the market but gives up a stable number to plan against. Spot gives maximum flexibility but no allocation guarantee and full exposure to volatility.
Applying one of these uniformly across a portfolio ignores that your lanes aren't uniform. A high-volume, predictable trade lane has different needs than an irregular, low-volume one, and treating them the same means over-optimizing for one risk at the expense of another somewhere else in your network.
High-volume, recurring lanes → index-linked. These are the lanes where the behavioral benefits of staying aligned with the market matter most: fewer renegotiation cycles, stronger allocation reliability, less time spent disputing GRIs. The volume is large enough that even small misalignment with the market compounds into real cost, and predictable enough that an index-linked structure's variable rate doesn't create budgeting chaos.
Stable, secondary lanes → fixed-rate. A fixed rate is administratively simple, and on a lane where the market rarely moves far from where you signed, that simplicity outweighs the alignment benefit index-linking would offer. It's worth remembering, though, that a fixed base rate doesn't mean a fixed total cost, surcharges can still erode that simplicity even on a stable lane. The case for keeping a lane on fixed-rate rests on low volatility overall, not on the rate being immune to cost variance.
Irregular or low-volume lanes → spot. As a general rule, lower-volume lanes often don't generate enough committed volume to justify dedicated annual contract structures. Spot gives you market-rate pricing without carrying a volume commitment you may not consistently need.
Lane volume and predictability are the starting point, but three other factors shift where the lines actually fall for your specific portfolio:
Budget flexibility. If finance requires a fixed annual freight number for planning purposes, every lane you move to index-linked introduces variability finance has to absorb. Organizations with more budget flexibility, or a finance function already comfortable with variable-cost categories like fuel or FX, can push more volume toward index-linked without creating an internal planning problem.
Historical volatility on the specific lane. A lane with a track record of large rate swings benefits more from index-linking than one that's been historically stable, even at similar volume. Don't apply the same split company-wide without checking each lane's actual volatility history.
Operational readiness. Index-linked contracts require infrastructure, tracking rate resets, reconciling invoices against the benchmark, monitoring performance. A lane-by-lane rollout that starts with your highest-volume, most volatile lanes and expands as your team builds that operational muscle is more sustainable than converting the entire portfolio at once. If that tracking is still happening manually, that's the specific gap NYSHEX Rate Management and Rate Intelligence are built to close.
Consider a shipper with meaningful volume across ten lanes. Rather than one contract type for all ten, a deliberate split might look like: three high-volume Asia-to-US lanes moved to index-linked contracts, given their volume and historical volatility. Four stable secondary lanes kept on fixed-rate annual contracts, where the administrative simplicity outweighs any alignment benefit. Three low-volume or irregular lanes left on spot.
That allocation isn't static. As operational infrastructure matures and a team's comfort with index-linked structures grows, the split shifts, typically toward more index-linked and less pure fixed-rate coverage over time, mirroring the broader industry move away from the old 90/10 model.
Contract structure isn't a single decision applied uniformly, it's a portfolio allocation exercise, the same way a CFO wouldn't hedge every financial exposure with the same instrument regardless of size or volatility. Structuring an ocean freight program well means treating your carrier portfolio the same way: matching the contract type to what each lane actually needs, not defaulting to whichever structure is newest or most familiar.
Explore Rate Intelligence
Consider an Index-Linked Contract
or