China vs Vietnam: Import Cost Comparison 2026

The US tariff structure in 2026 has created a dramatic cost differential between importing from China and importing from Vietnam. China faces Section 301 tariffs (7.5–100% depending on product list) stacked on top of the 10% Section 122 global surcharge. Vietnam has a bilateral deal at 20% — its only surcharge on top of MFN duties. For many product categories the China–Vietnam gap is meaningful, though the post-Wave-1 cascade has narrowed the Vietnam advantage on low-S301 (List 4A) consumer goods. This cost gap has accelerated a supply chain shift that began with the first Section 301 tariffs in 2018. Apparel, footwear, consumer electronics, furniture, and toys have seen the largest production migrations from China to Vietnam. Vietnam's manufacturing capacity, workforce, and logistics infrastructure have scaled to absorb much of this demand. This guide provides a quantified, product-by-product comparison of China versus Vietnam import costs using actual tariff data, and a framework for deciding which country better fits your sourcing strategy.

China's effective tariff rate depends on which Section 301 list covers your product and whether Section 232 applies. China under List 1-3 (most industrial goods, electronics, furniture, machinery): MFN + S122 10% + S301 25% = typically 38–45% total. List 4A (consumer goods, apparel, some electronics): MFN + S122 10% + S301 7.5% = approximately 20–30% total. Special products: EVs 100% total S301, solar panels 50%, semiconductors 50%. Vietnam has a bilateral deal rate of 20%, which replaces the base S122 rate as the middle tier in the stacking formula. For most goods: MFN + bilateral 20% = approximately 22–32% total, depending on the MFN rate. Vietnam has no Section 301 obligations and no Section 232 coverage for most products. The gap: for a List 3 product from China (25% S301) vs Vietnam, China faces approximately 38–43% while Vietnam faces 22–25%. That is a 15–20 percentage point difference — a material landed cost impact on any shipment.

Electronics (MFN ~3.4%): China List 4A electronics at 7.5% S301: 3.4% + 10% + 7.5% = 20.9%. Vietnam bilateral 20%: 3.4% + 20% = 23.4%. Difference: 2.5 percentage points (Vietnam now higher). On a $100,000 shipment: China pays $20,900 vs Vietnam $23,400. Vietnam costs $2,500 more — the post-Wave-1 cascade (S122=10 + Vietnam bilateral=20) has inverted the historical China premium on List 4A consumer electronics. Furniture (MFN ~5%): China List 3 at 25% S301: 5% + 10% + 25% = 40%. Vietnam bilateral 20%: 5% + 20% = 25%. Difference: 15 percentage points. On $100,000: China $40,000 vs Vietnam $25,000. Vietnam saves $15,000 per entry. Apparel (MFN ~12%): China List 4A at 7.5% S301: 12% + 10% + 7.5% = 29.5%. Vietnam bilateral 20%: 12% + 20% = 32%. Difference: 2.5 percentage points (Vietnam now higher). On $100,000: China $29,500 vs Vietnam $32,000. Vietnam costs $2,500 more — high MFN rates dominate and the post-Wave-1 cascade has flipped the apparel cost comparison for List 4A goods. Machinery (MFN ~2%): China List 1 at 25% S301: 2% + 10% + 25% = 37%. Vietnam bilateral: 2% + 20% = 22%. Difference: 15 points. On $100,000: China $37,000 vs Vietnam $22,000. Footwear (MFN ~9%): China List 4A at 7.5% S301: 9% + 10% + 7.5% = 26.5%. Vietnam bilateral: 9% + 20% = 29%. Difference: 2.5 points (Vietnam now higher). On $100,000: China $26,500 vs Vietnam $29,000. Vietnam costs $2,500 more — same List-4A inversion pattern as electronics and apparel.

A concrete $25,000 electronics shipment example illustrates the total cost difference. China (consumer electronics, List 4A): Customs value $25,000. MFN 3.4% = $850. Section 122 10% = $2,500. Section 301 7.5% = $1,875. Total duties: $5,225. MPF: 0.3464% × $25,000 = $86.60. Total import cost: $5,311.60. Total effective rate: 21.2%. Vietnam (consumer electronics, bilateral 20%): Customs value $25,000. MFN 3.4% = $850. Bilateral 20% = $5,000. Section 301: 0%. Total duties: $5,850. MPF: $86.60. Total import cost: $5,936.60. Effective rate: 23.7%. Cost gap: Vietnam costs $625 more per $25,000 shipment than China for List 4A electronics — a 2.5 percentage-point disadvantage. The Vietnam bilateral rate of 20% exceeds China's combined Section 122 (10%) + Section 301 List 4A (7.5%) = 17.5% middle-tier-plus-S301 stack by 2.5 points, inverting the historical China premium for low-S301 consumer goods. For higher S301 list memberships (List 1-3 at 25%), China remains substantially more expensive than Vietnam. After Section 122 expires July 24, 2026: China drops to 3.4% + 7.5% = 10.9% total. Vietnam drops to an uncertain rate — possibly 3.4% MFN only, or the bilateral deal rate may persist. The post-expiration picture significantly narrows or eliminates the tariff gap between China and Vietnam.

Vietnam's tariff advantage does not come without trade-offs. Understanding the manufacturing landscape is essential for an accurate total cost of ownership comparison. Manufacturing capability: Vietnam excels in labor-intensive assembly — apparel, footwear, consumer electronics assembly (Samsung, Intel, LG all have major Vietnam facilities), furniture, and basic machinery. For complex manufacturing requiring deep supply chains (semiconductor fabrication, precision engineering, advanced machinery), China's ecosystem remains superior. Vietnam lacks the raw material supply base, tool-and-die industry depth, and specialist subcontractor networks that China has built over 40 years. Lead times: ocean freight from Vietnam to US East Coast runs approximately 30–35 days; to West Coast, 25–28 days. This is comparable to southern China ports. Northern Vietnam (Hanoi region) adds 3–5 transit days to major US ports versus coastal China. Quality: for standardized manufacturing with clear specifications and active quality control, Vietnamese factories produce comparable quality to Chinese factories at similar price points. For highly customized or technically complex goods, the talent pool and tooling infrastructure in China provide advantages that take years to replicate. Minimum order quantities: Vietnamese factories typically require higher MOQs than established Chinese suppliers, reflecting lower domestic demand base and smaller production runs.

Vietnam's bilateral deal was negotiated under IEEPA authority, which the Supreme Court struck down February 20, 2026. The deal's legal status is uncertain. The administration has maintained the 20% rate as de facto policy, but Vietnam could theoretically return to S122 standard treatment (10% — the deal rate of 20% is actually higher than base S122, making Vietnam's bilateral deal a meaningful disadvantage relative to countries without deals). This raises an important nuance: Vietnam's bilateral rate of 20% is 10 percentage points above the base Section 122 rate of 10%. Countries with no bilateral deal but subject to standard S122 face 10%, not 20%. Vietnam chose to lock in a bilateral deal at a higher rate, possibly in exchange for market access concessions in other areas. After Section 122 expires July 24, 2026: if the bilateral deal collapses with S122, Vietnam drops to MFN-only rate (~21% for apparel, 3.4% for electronics). If the bilateral deal persists, Vietnam stays at 20%. In either scenario, the post-S122 advantage shifts meaningfully in China's direction for most product categories, since China's S301 is much smaller as a percentage burden when S122 is removed.

Vietnam wins on: apparel, footwear, basic consumer goods, furniture (standard wood products), consumer electronics assembly, toys, and most labor-intensive manufacturing. The tariff gap plus Vietnam's competitive labor costs make it the clear lower-total-cost choice for these categories under current tariff structures. China wins on: advanced electronics (smartphones, semiconductors, precision instruments), complex machinery, industrial equipment, products with long domestic supply chains (chemicals, specialty plastics, advanced composites), items requiring rapid iteration or customization, and products where China's domestic market creates critical scale advantages. The decision framework: calculate your current China-sourced total landed cost using the CalcMyTariff.com calculator. Then calculate the Vietnam equivalent using the same product category and your typical FOB value. Factor in: lead time difference, quality control cost, MOQ requirements, and the 20% bilateral rate. If the tariff savings exceed the operational cost differential, Vietnam is likely the better choice. For products in China's sweet spot (complex manufacturing), the tariff gap does not justify the capability trade-off.