Ocean Freight Indices Explained: SCFI, WCI, FBX, NYFI and How to Choose the Right One

The previous piece in this series made the case for index-linked contracts as a structural solution to the floating surcharge problem and the behavioral breakdown that fixed-rate contracts produce in volatile markets. It also closed with a warning: the entire structure depends on one decision that most shippers do not give enough attention. The index you link to is not a detail. It is the foundation. Choose the wrong one and the problems index-linked contracts are supposed to solve come right back, just through a different mechanism.

This piece delivers on that warning. It covers what freight indices are, how they are built, what each major index actually measures, and how to evaluate which one belongs in your contract.

What Is a Freight Index and Why Does It Matter?

A freight index is a benchmark that measures the cost of shipping containers along specific trade lanes at a given point in time. It aggregates rate data from multiple sources: carriers, shippers, forwarders, or booking platforms, and produces a single reference number that represents the market rate for a given lane and container type.

Freight indices exist because ocean freight rates are not publicly traded. Unlike oil, grain, or equities, there is no exchange where container shipping rates are continuously posted and visible to all market participants. Without a benchmark, every shipper negotiates in relative information darkness, knowing only what they paid last time and what their forwarder tells them the market is doing. A reliable freight index changes that. It gives shippers, carriers, and forwarders a shared reference point for what the market is actually charging, which makes contract negotiations, procurement decisions, and budget planning more grounded in reality.

For benchmarking and market intelligence purposes, freight indices are valuable tools even when imperfect. For index-linked contracts, the bar is higher. When a contract rate resets monthly against an index, the index is no longer just a reference -- it becomes the rate. At that point, the quality of the underlying data, the methodology used to construct the index, and the governance structure that oversees it determine whether the index-linked contract delivers what it promises or simply substitutes one form of rate distortion for another.

How Freight Indices Are Built: The Distinction That Changes Everything

Before evaluating any specific index, there is one question that determines more about an index's fitness for index-linked contract purposes than any other: what is the underlying data made of?

Every freight index is built on one of three data types, and they are not equivalent.

Quoted rates are rates that carriers or NVOs offer but that may or may not result in an actual booking. A quoted rate that is too high attracts no bookings. A quoted rate that is too low may be withdrawn before cargo moves. In both cases, the quote can enter an index calculation without ever resulting in a container being loaded. In volatile markets, the gap between quoted rates and rates that actually clear is significant and directionally biased -- carriers quote optimistically in rising markets and withdraw quotes in falling ones. An index built on quoted rates in a volatile market can systematically overstate or understate where the market actually cleared.

Booked rates are rates at which shippers and carriers have agreed in principle but cargo has not yet shipped. Booking-to-shipment lag means a booked rate reflects market conditions at the time of booking, not at the time of movement. In a fast-moving market, that lag introduces meaningful distortion. A booked rate from three weeks ago is not the rate the market is clearing today.

Shipped-on-board rates are rates for containers that have physically loaded onto a vessel during the index period. Every data point is a completed transaction. No quotes that went unfilled. No bookings that got rolled or cancelled. The rate the index reflects is the rate someone actually paid to move actual cargo.

For trend-watching and general market intelligence, the distinction matters less. All three data types will show you the direction the market is moving. For index-linked contracts, it matters enormously. When you link a contract to an index, you are agreeing that the index represents the market rate your contract should reflect. If the index is built on quoted rates, you are effectively agreeing that carrier aspirations represent market reality -- which is precisely the dynamic index-linked contracts are supposed to eliminate.

Quoted Rate Indices vs. Transaction-Based Indices: What Each Tells You

Quoted-rate and booked-rate indices are excellent tools for market intelligence. They move faster than transaction-based indices because they do not have to wait for cargo to load. They are useful for spotting directional trends, monitoring lane conditions, and getting a feel for where the market is heading.

Transaction-based indices are slower by design. It takes roughly three weeks from booking for a container to be shipped on board. A transaction-based index published this Friday reflects cargo that moved last week, not rates being quoted today. That lag is a real limitation for real-time market monitoring.

But for index-linked contract purposes, the tradeoff inverts. Speed is less important than accuracy. When your contracted rate resets monthly against an index, what matters is that the index accurately reflects what the market actually cleared -- not what it aspired to charge. A transaction-based index with a three-week lag that reflects true market rates is more useful for contracting than a real-time quoted-rate index that may be systematically biased in either direction.

With that framework established, here are the major indices.

SCFI -- Shanghai Containerized Freight Index

Published by: Shanghai Shipping Exchange (SSE), sponsored by China's Ministry of Transport Data type: Quoted and surveyed spot rates Update frequency: Weekly, published Fridays at 15:00 Beijing Time Coverage: Spot export rates from Shanghai to 15 global ports Oversight: KPMG audit oversight since 2010

The SCFI is the most widely cited container freight index in the world and has been since Shanghai became the world's largest container port. It was established in 2009 and covers 15 major routes from Shanghai to base ports across the Americas, Europe, and Asia.

The SCFI is calculated from a weekly survey of panelists including 20 carriers and 17 shippers and freight forwarders. The Shanghai Shipping Exchange uses arithmetic mean to calculate individual route rates and a weighted average for the composite index. The base period is October 16, 2009, indexed at 1,000 points.

The SSE's own documentation is instructive on what the SCFI actually measures. It describes the index as targeting "the spot rates of Shanghai export container transport market, which is more sensitive and periodical." That sensitivity is both the SCFI's strength and its limitation. Because it is built on surveyed rates rather than shipped transactions, it moves quickly -- sometimes faster than the market actually clears, particularly in volatile periods when carrier quotes and actual bookings diverge significantly.

For index-linked contracts, that sensitivity creates a specific risk. In a rapidly rising market, SCFI can move above the rates that are actually clearing because carriers are quoting optimistically and the survey captures those quotes before the market confirms whether anyone booked them. A shipper linked to SCFI in that environment pays above what the market actually traded at. In a falling market the dynamic reverses -- but falling markets are not where most index-linked contract structures get stress-tested.

Best use case: Monitoring directional rate trends on Shanghai trade lanes. Widely understood by counterparties and deeply liquid as a reference point. Requires careful consideration for index-linked contract purposes given the quoted-rate methodology and Shanghai-only geographic scope.

Access: Composite index publicly accessible with one-day lag for non-subscribers. Historical data and granular route data require a subscription at CNY 15,000 per year.

CCFI -- China Containerized Freight Index

Published by: Shanghai Shipping Exchange Data type: Spot and contract rates combined Update frequency: Weekly, published Fridays Coverage: Container exports from 10 major Chinese ports across 12 trade lanes

The CCFI predates the SCFI, established in 1998 to monitor container freight rates from China's major ports: Dalian, Tianjin, Qingdao, Shanghai, Nanjing, Ningbo, Xiamen, Fuzhou, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou. Where the SCFI captures only Shanghai spot rates, the CCFI casts a wider net -- both geographically, across all major Chinese ports, and in terms of rate type, blending spot and contractual rates.

The SSE's own characterization of the CCFI versus the SCFI is worth understanding directly. The SSE describes the CCFI as targeting "the overall freight level (including spot and contractual rates) of China's export container transport market, which is more comprehensive and macroeconomic." Comprehensive and macroeconomic is another way of saying it smooths out the volatility that makes the SCFI move sharply. For shippers who find SCFI movements too reactive for contract purposes, the CCFI offers a more stable signal -- but at the cost of reflecting an average that may not map precisely to any particular lane or moment.

The blend of spot and contract data in the CCFI introduces a structural lag that goes beyond the survey methodology. Contract rates set at the beginning of a quarter do not move until they reset. A composite index that blends those rates with spot rates will underreact to rapid market moves in either direction -- which may feel like stability but is actually delayed representation of where the market is going.

Best use case: Macro-level view of Chinese export freight conditions. Useful for shippers with diversified China port exposure who want a less reactive signal than SCFI. The blend of spot and contract data makes it unsuitable for index-linked contract contracts where timely market alignment is the goal.

Access: Publicly accessible at composite level. Historical and granular data require subscription.

WCI -- Drewry World Container Index

Published by: Drewry Shipping Consultants Data type: Spot rates submitted by shippers and forwarders Update frequency: Weekly Coverage: Eight major global trade lanes, 40ft containers (FEU) only

Drewry positions the WCI as the go-to independent global reference for index-linked contracts, a claim that reflects the index's long tenure and Drewry's established reputation as a shipping research and advisory firm. The WCI covers eight lanes: Shanghai-Rotterdam, Rotterdam-Shanghai, Shanghai-Los Angeles, Los Angeles-Shanghai, Shanghai-New York, New York-Rotterdam, Rotterdam-New York, and Shanghai-Genoa.

The WCI is built from spot rate data submitted by shippers and forwarders, which puts it in the surveyed and submitted category rather than the transaction-based category. Drewry's methodology is published but the specific calculation details are not fully disclosed, which the S&P Global reporting on freight indices has previously described as the industry's general "secret sauce" problem -- producers publish high-level methodology while the actual weighting and calculation mechanics remain proprietary.

The WCI is FEU-only, which is a meaningful practical advantage for shippers standardized on 40ft equipment. SCFI and CCFI rates vary by container type across lanes, requiring closer monitoring to ensure alignment with actual container usage. Drewry's eight-lane structure is more limited than some alternatives for shippers with exposure outside those specific corridors. Notably absent are subtrade coverage and lanes beyond the core Asia-US and Asia-Europe routes.

The WCI has genuine strengths: independent governance, broad recognition among carriers and shippers as a reference rate, and historical data going back to 2011. Its limitation for index-linked contract purposes is the submitted-rate methodology, the data reflects what panelists report paying, not necessarily what every container on those lanes actually cleared at.

Best use case: Global rate benchmarking across major east-west lanes. Widely recognized as a reference rate in contract negotiations. Requires awareness of the submitted-rate methodology and limited lane coverage for shippers outside the eight core routes.

Access: Subscription-based for granular data. Composite weekly rate publicly available.

FBX -- Freightos Baltic Index

Published by: Freightos Data type: Transactions from the Freightos booking marketplace Update frequency: Daily, also aggregated weekly Coverage: 12 global trade lanes Regulatory status: IOSCO compliant; EU regulated

The FBX stands out for two credentials no other major container freight index holds: it is the only daily container freight rate index, and it is the only container freight index that is both IOSCO compliant and EU regulated. Those are meaningful distinctions. IOSCO principles are the global standard for financial benchmark governance, and EU regulatory oversight adds accountability that most freight indices do not carry.

The FBX is built from transactions made on the Freightos.com booking marketplace, which makes it transaction-based in the sense that bookings are real executed agreements rather than surveys or quotes. The important caveat is that the underlying data comes from a single platform. Shippers who book on Freightos represent a subset of the global market, and not necessarily a representative one across all lanes, cargo types, and deal sizes. Platform selection bias is a genuine consideration -- the profile of shippers using a digital booking marketplace may not reflect the behavior of large BCOs, NVOCCs, or carriers transacting directly outside that platform.

The FBX includes port-to-port charges and associated ocean surcharges in its rate calculation. It covers 12 global lanes including Asia-US West Coast and East Coast, Asia-Europe, and trans-Atlantic routes.

Best use case: Shippers who want daily rate visibility and value the regulatory credentials. The IOSCO and EU compliance framework is the strongest in the index market. Best understood with awareness of the platform concentration limitation.

Access: Some FBX metrics publicly available. Granular data and exports via paid subscription or Thomson Reuters Eikon.

XSI -- Xeneta Shipping Index

Published by: Xeneta Data type: Contract and spot rates submitted by shippers and forwarders as part of Xeneta's benchmarking subscription Update frequency: Monthly for long-term contract rates; more frequent for spot Coverage: Global, with granular subtrade coverage across hundreds of lanes

Xeneta's index is built from crowd-sourced rate data. Shippers and forwarders submit their contracted and spot rates to Xeneta's platform in exchange for benchmarking access. The XSI is derived from that dataset, which Xeneta describes as covering 700 million or more rate data points across 170,000 or more lanes. The breadth of Xeneta's data is its primary differentiator -- no other index comes close to that lane-level granularity, which is why XSI has become a standard tool for procurement benchmarking and tender optimization at large BCOs.

For index-linked contract purposes specifically, Xeneta's own advisory content from February 2026 is worth reading. Their guidance on index selection for index-linked contract contracts explicitly warns about geographic mismatch: linking a Japan-to-Los Angeles contract to a Shanghai index would have cost shippers $200 to $400 per FEU more than the Japan lane actually traded at in early 2026 because the two lanes do not move in lockstep. That Xeneta published this warning using their own platform data is a credible signal about the genuine difficulty of index selection -- and an implicit argument for using the most lane-specific, transaction-accurate index available rather than a convenient proxy.

The XSI's limitation for index-linked contract purposes is the blend of contracted and spot rates across a subscriber base. Self-selection bias is real -- companies that pay for a benchmarking subscription are not a random sample of the global shipper population. And the monthly update frequency for long-term contract rates makes XSI less suitable as a monthly reset mechanism in an index-linked contract structure.

Best use case: Benchmarking and tender optimization across a broad carrier and lane portfolio. Widely used for market intelligence and rate negotiation preparation. Less commonly used as the direct reset reference in index-linked contract contracts.

Access: Paid subscription required. No free access tier for rate data.

NYFI -- NYSHEX Freight Index

Published by: NYSHEX Data type: Shipped-on-board transactions only Update frequency: Weekly, published Fridays at 10:00am US Eastern Time (reflects previous ISO week) Coverage: Five major trade lanes: Asia to USWC, Asia to USEC, Asia to North Europe, Europe to USEC, USEC to Europe with all major head-hauls to be released in the near future Regulatory status: FMC regulated on applicable routes; governed by independent multi-stakeholder board

We built NYFI specifically for index-linked contracts and financial hedging, and every design decision in our methodology reflects that purpose.

Our data foundation is shipped-on-board transactions exclusively. We source anonymized, executed shipment data directly from global shippers, carriers, and NVOCCs. Every record is validated for accuracy and completeness, with outliers automatically flagged and reviewed under our published methodology. Our FAQ states the principle directly: quotes reflect intent, not execution. In volatile markets, that difference can distort reality. NYFI's shipped data ensures every rate represents a transaction that actually occurred -- not what someone hoped to pay or charge.

Our surcharge treatment is specific and published. NYFI includes base ocean freight and mandatory surcharges: bunker adjustment, security, and terminal handling charges. We exclude variable or temporary surcharges such as peak season surcharges and congestion surcharges. The rationale is contract stability: including a PSS in the index rate during a peak season period would double-count cost exposure for a shipper already subject to PSS under their contract. Clean comparability requires consistent surcharge inclusion, not a moving target.

Our governance structure is designed for neutrality. An independent multi-stakeholder board with equal representation from shippers, carriers, and NVOCCs governs NYFI. No single category of market participant controls our data, methodology, or publication schedule. Changes to methodology require board approval. Board members include Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, GEODIS, Hellmann, KWE, and others with equal representation across the industry, not a single commercial interest. NYFI operates under a Federal Maritime Commission agreement on applicable routes and meets the integrity and transparency standards of regulated financial benchmarks, which is the foundation that enabled Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) to launch NYFI-linked container freight futures contracts in April 2026.

We are transparent about our limitations. The three-week lag is real. It takes approximately three weeks from booking for a container to be shipped on board and appear in NYFI. We made a deliberate accuracy-over-speed tradeoff. For index-linked contract purposes, a lagged index that reflects true cleared rates is more useful than a real-time index that reflects what carriers hoped to charge. Our current five-lane coverage is narrower than some competitors. Shippers with significant exposure outside Asia-US, Asia-Europe, and trans-Atlantic lanes will find NYFI does not yet cover their specific trades.

Best use case: Index-linked contracts and financial hedging on major east-west trade lanes where transaction-based accuracy and governance credibility are the priorities. The only index currently underlying exchange-traded container freight futures.

Access: Free access to weekly NYFI rates at nyshex.com. NYFI PRO for subtrade indices, historical data back to 2023, volatility analytics, and forward curve visibility. API available for platform integration.

How the Major Indices Compare

How to Choose the Right Index for Your Contract

No index is universally correct. The right choice depends on four factors, in order of importance.

Geographic fit. The index must track the lanes you actually ship on. This is the single most important criterion and the most commonly violated one. An index that covers Shanghai exports does not accurately reflect Japan exports, Vietnam exports, or intra-Asia movements even when those markets broadly correlate. Xeneta's own February 2026 analysis quantified the cost of geographic mismatch at $200 to $400 per FEU in a single month on a Japan-to-Los Angeles lane versus a Shanghai index. Over a 12-month contract at meaningful volume, that basis risk compounds into material cost exposure.

Data methodology. For index-linked contract purposes specifically, transaction-based indices reduce the risk that the index reflects carrier aspirations rather than market reality. If you are linking a contract to a quoted-rate index, understand that the index can move faster and further than the market actually clears -- which means your contracted rate can go above or below what a transaction-based reference would show. In rising markets that benefits the carrier. In falling markets it benefits the shipper. Neither outcome reflects the index-linked contract core promise of market alignment.

Container type alignment. Some indices are FEU-only. Others cover both 20ft and 40ft but vary by lane. If you primarily move 20ft containers and your contract is benchmarked against a 40ft index, the rate differential between container sizes introduces another source of basis risk. Verify that the index tracks the equipment type your contract covers.

Update frequency and reset mechanism. The index update frequency needs to match your contract reset schedule. A monthly reset contract benchmarked against a daily index requires a clear specification of which day's reading applies. A monthly reset contract benchmarked against a weekly index requires the same clarity. These are details to negotiate explicitly and document in the contract, not assumptions to leave unaddressed.

Beyond these four criteria, governance and transparency matter for long-term contracts. An index with a published methodology, independent oversight, and a clear process for handling disputes and methodology changes is more reliable as a long-term contract reference than one where methodology is opaque or controlled by a single commercial entity.

What to Do Before You Sign

Before linking a contract to any index, three steps are worth completing regardless of which index you choose.

Run a historical simulation on your specific lanes. Most index providers offer historical data. Model how your contracted rate would have behaved under the proposed index structure during the 2022 rate collapse, the 2024 Red Sea spike, and the 2026 Hormuz disruption. If the index would have produced rates that diverged significantly from what you actually paid or should have paid on your specific lanes during those periods, that divergence is your basis risk. Know it before you commit.

Read the methodology document, not just the marketing. Every major index publishes a methodology document. The two questions to answer from it: what data goes in, and who controls how the index is calculated and changed? An index whose methodology can be changed unilaterally by its publisher is a different risk profile than one governed by an independent board with published change-control procedures.

Reconcile the surcharge treatment between the index and the contract. Know what surcharges are included in your chosen index and what that means for how your contract handles floating surcharges. If the index already includes a bunker surcharge component and your contract also allows BAF to be applied separately, you may be paying for fuel cost recovery twice. The surcharge architecture of the contract and the surcharge inclusion logic of the index need to be reconciled before you sign -- not discovered on the first invoice.

What Comes Next

Freight indices are the infrastructure that makes index-linked contracts work -- or fail. Selecting the right one is a procurement decision with material financial consequences, and it deserves the same rigor as any other contract term.

The next piece in this series covers freight hedging: what it is, how it works alongside index-linked contracts, and how shippers and carriers are beginning to use financial instruments to manage freight rate exposure the same way they manage fuel, currency, and commodity risk. For procurement and finance teams that have worked through the index-linked contract structure and selected an appropriate index, hedging is the next layer of risk management available -- and it is becoming more accessible as the market matures.

Free access to NYFI data, our methodology documents, and a contract simulator are available here.

Want to speak with someone at NYSHEX to see if an index-linked contract could be right for you?