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, and two separate events in 2026 both widened it in Vietnam's favour. Vietnam's 20% reciprocal country rate was terminated on February 20, 2026 by Executive Order 14389. Section 122 then lapsed to 0% on July 24, and a 12.5% forced-labor Section 301 duty backfilled it for both origins alike. What is left is a comparison with an unusually clean shape: Vietnam pays MFN plus 12.5%, China pays MFN plus 12.5% plus its own punitive Section 301 rate. Since MFN and the forced-labor duty are identical on both sides, the entire gap between the two origins is now exactly China's Section 301 list rate. 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. Section 122 lapsed to 0% for every origin on July 24, 2026, but China is on the forced-labor Section 301 covered list, so its surcharge was backfilled rather than removed. China under List 1-3 (most industrial goods, electronics, furniture, machinery): MFN + China-punitive S301 25% + forced-labor S301 12.5% = 39% on consumer electronics, 39.5% on machinery, 42.5% on furniture, 49.5% on apparel. List 4A (consumer goods, apparel, some electronics): MFN + China-punitive S301 7.5% + forced-labor S301 12.5% = 21.5% on consumer electronics, 30% on footwear, 32% on apparel. Special products: EVs still carry a 100% total China-punitive S301 (the forced-labor duty stacks additively on top of that too), solar panels 50% S301, semiconductors 50% S301. Vietnam's middle tier is empty. Its 20% reciprocal country rate was terminated on February 20, 2026, Section 122 lapsed for every origin on July 24, and Vietnam has no Section 232 coverage for most products. What remains is MFN plus its 12.5% forced-labor Section 301 duty: 14% on consumer electronics, 14.5% on machinery, 17.5% on furniture, 22.5% on footwear, 24.5% on apparel. The gap: MFN is the same for both origins and the 12.5% forced-labor duty applies to both, so both cancel out of the comparison entirely. What is left is China's punitive Section 301 rate and nothing else. A List 4A product (7.5% S301) costs 7.5 points more from China; a List 1-3 product (25% S301) costs 25 points more. That is the whole answer, and it holds across every non-S232 category. That comparison uses the category rate for both origins. Upholstered wooden furniture and kitchen cabinets, vanities and their parts sit on a separate Section 232 wood-products tier (HTSUS 9903.76.02 and 9903.76.03) instead, carrying Free MFN of their own and surviving a USMCA preference claim — China totals 50% on that tier rather than 39-42.5%, and Vietnam totals 25% rather than 14-17.5%, rising to 30% on upholstered furniture and 50% on cabinets and vanities starting January 1, 2027. The tier does not always cost more, though: it runs the other way for Brazil, where a covered shipment totals 25% against a 42.5% category rate, and for the United Kingdom, where it totals 10% against 15%, because both drop a country-specific duty the category rate carries.

Electronics (MFN 1.5%): Vietnam is 1.5% + 12.5% forced-labor = 14%. China List 4A is 1.5% + 7.5% S301 + 12.5% forced-labor = 21.5%; China List 1-3 is 39%. On a $100,000 shipment Vietnam saves $7,500 against List 4A and $25,000 against List 1-3. Furniture (MFN 5%): Vietnam is 5% + 12.5% = 17.5%. China List 3 is 5% + 25% + 12.5% = 42.5%. Difference: 25 points. On $100,000, Vietnam saves $25,000 per entry. Upholstered wooden furniture and kitchen cabinets carry a separate wood-products tier instead — 50% for China, 25% for Vietnam. Apparel (MFN 12%): Vietnam is 12% + 12.5% = 24.5%. China List 4A is 12% + 7.5% + 12.5% = 32%. Difference: 7.5 points, or $7,500 per $100,000. Machinery (MFN 2%): Vietnam is 2% + 12.5% = 14.5%. China List 1 is 2% + 25% + 12.5% = 39.5%. Difference: 25 points. Footwear (MFN 10%): Vietnam is 10% + 12.5% = 22.5%. China List 4A is 10% + 7.5% + 12.5% = 30%. Difference: 7.5 points. Read down the Difference column and it is 7.5 points on every List 4A category and 25 points on every List 1-3 category, with no variation by product. That is not a coincidence: MFN and the forced-labor duty are common to both origins, so the difference reduces to China's Section 301 list rate exactly.

A concrete $25,000 electronics shipment example illustrates the total cost difference under the post-cliff formula (Section 122 lapsed to 0% on July 24, 2026, backfilled by the forced-labor Section 301 duty for covered origins). China (consumer electronics, List 4A): Customs value $25,000. MFN 1.5% = $375. Middle tier: $0 (Section 122 lapsed, electronics not S232-covered). Section 301 (China-punitive, List 4A) 7.5% = $1,875. Forced-labor Section 301 12.5% = $3,125. Total duties: $5,375. MPF: 0.3464% × $25,000 = $86.60. HMF on an ocean shipment: $31.25. Total import cost: $5,492.85. Effective rate on duties alone: 21.5%. Vietnam (consumer electronics): Customs value $25,000. MFN 1.5% = $375. Middle tier: $0. Forced-labor Section 301 12.5% = $3,125. Total duties: $3,500. MPF: $86.60. HMF: $31.25. Total import cost: $3,617.85. Effective rate on duties alone: 14%. Cost gap: Vietnam saves $1,875 per $25,000 shipment against List 4A electronics, which is precisely the China-punitive Section 301 line and nothing else — every other line on the two invoices is identical. Against a List 1-3 product at 25% S301 the same shipment would save $6,250. Before February 2026, when Vietnam still carried a 20% reciprocal country rate, this comparison ran the other way on List 4A goods; the termination of that rate reversed it.

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 20% rate was widely reported as the product of a negotiated deal. It was not a separate instrument. It was a country line inside the reciprocal tariff imposed by Executive Order 14257, enumerated in HTSUS Chapter 99 alongside the universal reciprocal baseline. Executive Order 14389, "Ending Certain Tariff Actions" (91 FR 9437), provided on February 20, 2026 that the additional duties imposed under IEEPA in Executive Order 14257, as amended, are no longer in effect and are no longer to be collected. Vietnam's 20% went with it, and CBP has since published a refund worksheet for duties collected under the terminated headings (91 FR 42207, July 8, 2026). The timing matters for anyone reading older analysis. That termination landed on February 20, four days before Section 122 was invoked on February 24, so the two never overlapped. Any account describing Vietnam as paying a 20% deal rate alongside or instead of Section 122 during 2026 is describing something that did not happen. The practical consequence is large and it runs in Vietnam's favour. Removing 20 points left Vietnam at MFN plus the 12.5% forced-labor Section 301 duty that took effect on July 24, which is 14% on consumer electronics and 17.5% on furniture (upholstered wooden furniture carries a separate 25% wood-products tier instead of that 17.5%). Section 232 still reaches Vietnamese goods in the covered categories, and that is now the only way a Vietnamese shipment picks up a middle-tier layer at all.

Vietnam wins on tariffs everywhere outside Section 232, and by a wider margin than at any point since 2018: apparel, footwear, basic consumer goods, furniture (standard wood products), consumer electronics assembly, toys, and most labor-intensive manufacturing. The gap is 7.5 points on List 4A categories and 25 points on List 1-3, on top of Vietnam's competitive labor costs. 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 Vietnam's 12.5% forced-labor Section 301 duty, which is the only special-tariff layer it now carries. 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.