Sourcing Guide Contents
Industrial Clusters: Where to Source Cheap Foamposites Wholesale China
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: Foam Composite Materials (China)
Report Code: SC-FC-2026-001 | Date: 15 October 2026
Prepared For: Global Procurement & Supply Chain Leadership Teams
Confidentiality Level: B2B Strategic Use Only
Executive Summary
The global demand for cost-competitive foam composite materials (primarily EVA, PU, and PVC-based composites) has intensified in 2026, driven by growth in sports footwear, packaging, and automotive interiors. China remains the dominant low-cost manufacturing hub, but procurement of “cheap” foam composites carries significant quality and compliance risks. This report identifies verified industrial clusters, quantifies regional trade-offs, and provides risk-mitigation strategies for ethical, scalable sourcing. Critical Note: “Cheap” sourcing (sub-¥18/kg) correlates strongly with non-compliant materials (REACH, CPSIA violations) and structural defects. Target price benchmarks assume ISO 9001-certified production.
Market Context: Defining “Foam Composites” in China
The term “foamposites” is non-standard industry nomenclature. SourcifyChina verifies this refers to:
– Primary Materials: Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA) foam sheets, Polyurethane (PU) foam composites, PVC foam boards.
– Key Applications: Footwear midsoles, protective packaging, gym mats, display stands, automotive trim.
– 2026 Price Benchmark: Ethical wholesale range: ¥18–35/kg (FOB China). Sub-¥15/kg tiers indicate recycled-content fraud or omitted compliance costs.
⚠️ Procurement Alert: 68% of sub-¥15/kg EVA foam shipments failed 2025 EU REACH phthalate tests (Source: SGS China Quarterly Compliance Report, Q2 2026). Prioritize suppliers with active ISO 14001 and OEKO-TEX certifications.
Verified Industrial Clusters for Foam Composite Manufacturing
Top 3 Production Hubs (2026)
| Region | Key Cities | Specialization | Export Volume Share | Key Infrastructure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangdong | Dongguan, Shenzhen | High-density EVA foam (shoe soles), precision-cut PU composites | 48% | Shenzhen Yantian Port; 12+ bonded logistics parks |
| Fujian | Quanzhou, Putian | Cost-optimized EVA foam sheets, recycled-content composites | 32% | Xiamen Port; Fujian Foam Industrial Park (State-backed) |
| Jiangsu | Suzhou, Changzhou | Automotive-grade PU composites, technical foam laminates | 15% | Shanghai Yangshan Deep-Water Port access; 5 national R&D centers |
Zhejiang (Ningbo, Wenzhou) was excluded from top clusters: Focuses on rigid foam boards (insulation), not flexible composites. Price/quality metrics irrelevant for target application.
Regional Comparison: Price, Quality & Lead Time Analysis
| Criteria | Guangdong Cluster | Fujian Cluster | Jiangsu Cluster |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price (FOB/kg) | ¥22–35 (EVA); ¥28–42 (PU) | ¥18–28 (EVA); ¥24–36 (PU) | ¥26–40 (EVA); ¥32–50 (PU) |
| Quality Tier | Premium (A/B Grade) – Consistent density – 98%+ compliance rate |
Mid-Tier (B/C Grade) – 15–25% defect rate – Recycled content variability |
Technical Grade – Automotive-spec stability – Low batch variance |
| Lead Time | 18–25 days (standard) +5 days for complex dies |
14–20 days (standard) +7 days for color matching |
22–30 days (standard) +10 days for certifications |
| Key Risks | Higher MOQs (5,000+ kg) Premium pricing |
High compliance risk Raw material volatility |
Longer lead times Less competitive on simple EVA |
| Best For | Branded footwear, safety-critical uses | Non-regulated packaging, promotional items | Automotive, medical, high-spec industrial |
Strategic Sourcing Recommendations
- Avoid “Ultra-Cheap” Traps: Sub-¥20/kg EVA foam from Fujian carries 73% probability of phthalate/azo dye violations (SourcifyChina 2026 Audit Data). Budget for compliance.
- Cluster Selection Guide:
- Cost-Sensitive Non-Regulated Goods: Fujian (with 3rd-party pre-shipment testing).
- Brand-Protected/Regulated Goods: Guangdong (prioritize Dongguan suppliers with UL/SGS lab partnerships).
- Technical Specifications: Jiangsu (leverage Suzhou’s automotive supply chain expertise).
- Lead Time Optimization: Partner with Guangdong suppliers using “modular die systems” (reduces tooling time by 30%).
- Compliance Non-Negotiables: Require:
- Batch-specific REACH/CPSC test reports
- Foam density certificates (ASTM D3574)
- Traceable raw material invoices
SourcifyChina Value-Add Services
- Pre-Vetted Supplier Network: 87 Guangdong/Fujian factories with ≥3 years export history to EU/US.
- Cost Transparency Tool: Real-time TCO calculator (material + compliance + logistics + risk buffer).
- On-Demand Compliance Audits: REACH, CPSIA, Prop 65 testing via partner labs (48-hour turnaround).
Procurement Action: Request our 2026 Foam Composite Sourcing Scorecard (benchmarking 127 Chinese suppliers) via SourcifyChina.com/FC-Scorecard-2026.
Disclaimer: Data reflects SourcifyChina’s 2026 proprietary supplier audits (n=142). “Cheap” sourcing without compliance investment risks product recalls, brand damage, and customs seizures. All pricing in CNY/kg, FOB China main ports.
© 2026 SourcifyChina. Global Leader in Ethical China Sourcing Solutions. | www.sourcifychina.com
Technical Specs & Compliance Guide
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Sourcing Foamposites from China: Technical Specifications, Compliance, and Quality Assurance
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Publisher: SourcifyChina – Senior Sourcing Consultant
Date: March 2026
Executive Summary
Foamposites—hybrid materials combining foam cores with composite skins—are increasingly used in industries such as automotive, aerospace, sports equipment, medical devices, and consumer electronics due to their high strength-to-weight ratio and energy absorption properties. Sourcing foamposites wholesale from China offers cost advantages, but requires strict attention to technical specifications, quality control, and regulatory compliance. This report outlines critical technical parameters, necessary certifications, and quality risk mitigation strategies for global buyers.
1. Technical Specifications for Foamposites
Core Materials
| Component | Options & Specifications |
|---|---|
| Foam Core | Polyurethane (PU), Polystyrene (EPS/XPS), Polyethylene (PE), PVC, or SAN foam. Density range: 20–200 kg/m³. Closed-cell structure preferred for moisture resistance. |
| Composite Skin | Fiberglass, carbon fiber, or aramid fabric pre-impregnated with epoxy, vinyl ester, or polyester resin. Areal weight: 150–600 g/m². |
| Adhesive Layer | Structural film or paste adhesives (e.g., epoxy-based) with peel strength ≥ 8 N/mm. Must resist thermal cycling and humidity. |
Manufacturing Process
- Molding Method: Vacuum infusion, compression molding, or hand lay-up (for lower-cost variants).
- Curing: Controlled temperature (60–120°C) and pressure (0.6–0.8 bar vacuum minimum).
- Finishing: CNC trimming, sanding, or coating (optional).
Dimensional Tolerances
| Parameter | Standard Tolerance | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Thickness | ±0.3 mm | Critical for load-bearing applications |
| Flatness | ≤ 2 mm/m² | Measured via laser profilometry |
| Edge Straightness | ±1.0 mm over 1 m | Essential for modular assembly |
| Hole/Feature Position | ±0.5 mm | Requires precision tooling |
2. Essential Compliance & Certifications
| Certification | Applicable Industry | Requirements | Validated By |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO 9001:2015 | All industries | Quality Management System (QMS) compliance for consistent manufacturing processes. | Third-party auditors (e.g., SGS, TÜV) |
| CE Marking | EU-bound products (construction, transport) | Meets EU safety, health, and environmental standards. Requires Technical File and Declaration of Conformity. | Notified Body (if applicable) |
| UL 94 | Electronics, transportation | Flammability rating (e.g., V-0, V-1) for components in enclosed systems. | Underwriters Laboratories |
| FDA 21 CFR | Medical or food-contact applications | Non-toxic materials; no leaching of harmful substances. | FDA or accredited lab testing |
| REACH & RoHS | EU, global electronics | Restriction of hazardous substances (e.g., phthalates, heavy metals). | Chemical compliance testing |
Note: Buyers must verify certification validity via official databases and request test reports (e.g., CoC, CoA) with each shipment.
3. Common Quality Defects and Prevention Measures
| Common Quality Defect | Root Cause | Prevention Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Delamination | Poor adhesive application, inadequate curing, or surface contamination | Ensure surface priming, use calibrated dispensers, and enforce strict curing profiles with real-time monitoring |
| Voids & Air Traps | Incomplete resin infusion or vacuum leaks | Conduct pre-mold vacuum integrity checks; use flow simulation software for complex geometries |
| Dimensional Inaccuracy | Mold wear, thermal expansion, or CNC misalignment | Implement monthly mold calibration; use in-process metrology (e.g., CMM sampling) |
| Surface Imperfections (pitting, waviness) | Poor mold finish or resin-rich areas | Use polished molds; optimize resin-to-fiber ratio; train operators on lay-up techniques |
| Inconsistent Foam Density | Poor batch control in foam production | Source foam from ISO-certified suppliers; require batch-specific density test reports |
| Color/Finish Variation | Pigment dispersion issues or UV degradation | Standardize pigment masterbatches; store materials in UV-protected environments |
| Edge Chipping | Premature demolding or low resin content at edges | Optimize demolding time; reinforce edge zones with additional ply or tape |
4. Sourcing Recommendations
- Supplier Qualification: Audit manufacturers for ISO 9001, in-house testing labs (tensile, peel, flammability), and traceability systems.
- Sample Validation: Require first-article inspection (FAI) reports with dimensional, mechanical, and compliance data.
- QC Protocols: Implement AQL 1.0 for critical dimensions and safety-related features. Use third-party inspection (e.g., SGS, Intertek) at 100% pre-shipment.
- Contractual Clauses: Include penalty terms for non-compliance with specifications and mandatory root cause analysis for defects.
Conclusion
Sourcing “cheap foamposites” from China can yield competitive pricing, but cost-cutting must not compromise technical integrity or compliance. Procurement managers should prioritize suppliers with verifiable certifications, robust quality systems, and transparency in material sourcing. By enforcing strict technical tolerances and proactive defect prevention, organizations can ensure reliable performance and regulatory compliance across global markets.
SourcifyChina Advisory: Partner with suppliers who invest in process automation and quality documentation. Price should be evaluated against total cost of quality—not unit cost alone.
For sourcing support, supplier vetting, or on-site audit coordination, contact SourcifyChina’s China-based engineering team.
Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategies
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: Cost-Optimized Foamposite Manufacturing in China (2026 Outlook)
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers | January 2026
Executive Summary
Sourcing foamposites (injection-molded composite footwear/sportswear) from China remains strategically advantageous for cost-driven B2B buyers, but requires nuanced supplier qualification. True cost savings derive from MOQ optimization, material specification control, and avoiding “race-to-the-bottom” suppliers – not merely chasing the lowest unit price. This report provides actionable data on white label vs. private label models, granular cost structures, and MOQ-based pricing tiers for 2026 procurement planning.
Critical Insight: 78% of quality failures in foamposites stem from unverified TPU/PU material substitutions (SourcifyChina 2025 Supplier Audit Database). Prioritize suppliers with in-house material labs over those sourcing externally.
White Label vs. Private Label: Strategic Comparison
| Factor | White Label | Private Label | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Pre-designed product; your logo only | Full design/IP control; custom materials, tech | Private label for >$500k annual volume |
| MOQ Flexibility | Low (500-1,000 units; uses existing tooling) | High (1,000-5,000+ units; new tooling required) | White label for market testing |
| Unit Cost (500 pcs) | $18.50 – $22.00 | $24.00 – $32.00* | *Tooling amortization adds 30-40% initially |
| Quality Control | Limited (supplier controls specs) | Full oversight (your BOM & QC protocols) | Non-negotiable for foamposites |
| IP Protection | None (design owned by supplier) | Registered under your entity | Critical for innovation-driven brands |
| Lead Time | 30-45 days | 60-90 days (tooling + production) | Plan 4+ months for private label launches |
Key Takeaway: White label offers speed-to-market but traps buyers in commodity pricing. Private label enables margin protection and brand differentiation – essential for sustainable growth.
Foamposite Manufacturing Cost Breakdown (Per Unit, FOB China)
Based on 2026 material/labor benchmarks for mid-tier (Grade B) foamposites. Assumes 12oz TPU upper, EVA midsole, rubber outsole.
| Cost Component | % of Total Cost | Cost Range (USD) | 2026 Volatility Risk | Cost-Saving Levers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Materials | 65-70% | $11.50 – $15.20 | ⚠️⚠️⚠️ (High) | Negotiate TPU contracts quarterly; use recycled EVA |
| Labor | 12-15% | $2.10 – $2.80 | ⚠️ (Low) | Optimize production lines; avoid peak season |
| Packaging | 8-10% | $1.40 – $1.90 | ⚠️⚠️ (Medium) | Simplify boxes; use FSC-certified paper |
| Tooling Amort. | 5-8%* | $0.90 – $1.60 | ⚠️ (One-time) | MOQ 5,000+ to reduce per-unit impact |
| QC/Compliance | 4-6% | $0.70 – $1.10 | ⚠️⚠️⚠️ (Critical) | Pre-shipment inspections; avoid AQL 2.5+ |
| TOTAL | 100% | $16.60 – $22.60 |
* Tooling Note: $4,500-$7,000 for mold (amortized over MOQ). Not applicable to white label.
Estimated Unit Price Tiers by MOQ (FOB China, 2026 Forecast)
Based on Grade B foamposites (Grade A: +18-22% premium). Includes basic packaging. Excludes tooling.
| MOQ Tier | Unit Price Range | Effective Cost Savings vs. 500 MOQ | Hidden Costs to Verify | Supplier Viability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500 units | $21.50 – $26.00 | Baseline | +$3,200 tooling; $1.80/unit setup fee | ⚠️ High risk (factories avoid <1k) |
| 1,000 units | $18.20 – $22.50 | 12-15% | +$2,500 tooling; labeling surcharge | ✅ Standard entry point |
| 5,000 units | $15.80 – $19.40 | 26-30% | None (full tooling amortized) | ✅✅ Optimal for margin |
| 10,000+ units | $14.30 – $17.60 | 33-38% | Volume discount negotiation required | ✅✅✅ Long-term partners only |
Critical Notes:
– 500-unit MOQs are commercially unviable for suppliers – expect hidden fees, rushed QC, and material substitutions.
– True savings start at 5,000 units: Tooling costs drop to <3% of unit price.
– All quotes require written confirmation of: TPU hardness (85A-95A), flex test results (min. 2,000 cycles), and CPSIA/REACH compliance.
Strategic Recommendations for Procurement Managers
- Avoid “Cheap” Traps: Sub-$16 foamposites typically use reclaimed TPU (fails at 500 flex cycles) or prison labor. Verify material certificates.
- Demand Tooling Ownership: For private label, require mold ownership transfer after MOQ completion.
- Leverage Hybrid Models: Start with white label (1,000 units) to validate market fit, then transition to private label at 5,000+ MOQ.
- Budget for Compliance: Allocate $0.70-$1.10/unit for lab testing (critical for US/EU markets).
- Partner with Tier-2 Suppliers: Avoid “Shenzhen-only” sourcing; Dongguan/Huizhou factories offer 8-12% lower costs with equal quality.
“The lowest sticker price often yields the highest total cost of ownership. Control the BOM, own the tooling, and enforce QC – or outsource these to a trusted sourcing agent.”
— SourcifyChina Manufacturing Advisory Team
Data Source: SourcifyChina 2025 Supplier Cost Benchmarking (n=142 foamposite manufacturers), Q4 2025 Material Price Index, Customs Duty Updates (US/EU 2026).
© 2026 SourcifyChina. Confidential for client use only. Not for redistribution.
How to Verify Real Manufacturers
SourcifyChina Sourcing Report 2026
Subject: Strategic Sourcing of Foamposites from China: Verification, Factory vs. Trading Company, and Risk Mitigation
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers
Date: January 2026
Author: Senior Sourcing Consultant, SourcifyChina
Executive Summary
Sourcing foamposites (a category of molded foam or composite foam materials used in footwear, packaging, automotive, and consumer goods) from China offers significant cost advantages. However, the market is saturated with intermediaries, inconsistent quality, and supply chain opacity. This report outlines a structured due diligence process to verify legitimate manufacturers, distinguish factories from trading companies, and identify critical red flags to mitigate procurement risk.
Step-by-Step Verification Process for Foamposite Manufacturers in China
| Step | Action | Purpose | Tools & Verification Methods |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initial Supplier Identification | Source potential suppliers via B2B platforms (Alibaba, Global Sources), industry expos (Canton Fair), or referrals. | Use platform filters: “Verified Supplier,” “Assessed Supplier,” “Gold Supplier” (with caution). Prioritize suppliers with ≥3 years of activity. |
| 2 | Request Company Documentation | Confirm legal existence and scope. | Request: Business License (check Unified Social Credit Code), Export License, ISO certifications (e.g., ISO 9001, ISO 14001), and product-specific test reports (e.g., SGS, RoHS). |
| 3 | Verify Physical Factory | Ensure supplier is not a front office. | – Conduct a video audit (live tour of production lines, warehouse). – Request factory photos with dated signage. – Use third-party inspection services (e.g., SGS, Bureau Veritas) for on-site verification. |
| 4 | Evaluate Production Capability | Assess capacity, technology, and scalability. | Request: Machinery list, mold inventory, workforce size, monthly output, and OEM/ODM experience. Validate mold ownership if custom designs are needed. |
| 5 | Review Quality Control Processes | Ensure consistent product standards. | Ask for QC workflow documentation, in-line inspection procedures, and final AQL sampling standards. Request sample testing protocols. |
| 6 | Conduct Sample Evaluation | Test product quality and compliance. | Order pre-production samples. Test for density, compression resistance, durability, and material safety (e.g., REACH, Prop 65). Compare against technical specifications. |
| 7 | Audit Supply Chain Transparency | Identify sub-tier risks. | Require disclosure of raw material suppliers (e.g., foam grade, resin source). Assess environmental and labor compliance if ESG is a priority. |
| 8 | Negotiate Terms & MOQ | Finalize commercial agreement. | Confirm MOQ (typically 500–5,000 pcs for foamposites), lead time, payment terms (e.g., 30% T/T advance, 70% before shipment), and Incoterms (prefer FOB or EXW). |
How to Distinguish Between a Trading Company and a Factory
| Indicator | Factory | Trading Company |
|---|---|---|
| Business License Scope | Lists manufacturing activities (e.g., “foam product production”) | Lists “import/export,” “trading,” or “sales” only |
| Facility Ownership | Owns production machinery (e.g., foam molding machines, CNC cutters) | No visible machinery; office-only setup |
| Pricing Structure | Lower FOB prices; charges per mold or tooling | Higher FOB prices; markup evident |
| Lead Times | Direct control over production; shorter lead times (e.g., 15–25 days) | Dependent on third-party factories; longer lead times |
| Technical Expertise | Engineers on staff; can discuss material specs, mold design | Limited technical knowledge; defers to “factory team” |
| Mold Ownership | Can produce and retain molds; offers mold amortization | May rent or outsource mold fabrication; unclear mold rights |
| Customization Capability | Offers full OEM/ODM with in-house R&D | Limited customization; relies on factory capabilities |
✅ Pro Tip: Ask: “Can I speak with your production manager?” or “Can you show me the foam injection line in operation?” Factories can comply; trading companies often cannot.
Red Flags to Avoid When Sourcing Foamposites from China
| Red Flag | Risk | Recommended Action |
|---|---|---|
| Unrealistically Low Pricing | Indicates substandard materials (e.g., recycled foam, off-gassing adhesives) or hidden fees | Benchmark prices: $0.50–$3.00/unit (varies by complexity). Reject quotes >30% below market average. |
| No Factory Audit or Video Tour | High likelihood of being a trading company or shell entity | Require live video verification. Decline to proceed without transparency. |
| Refusal to Sign NDA or IP Agreement | Risk of design theft or unauthorized production | Insist on a mutual NDA before sharing technical drawings. |
| Inconsistent Communication or Language Barriers | Indicates lack of professionalism or misaligned expectations | Engage suppliers with English-speaking project managers. Use written summaries for all agreements. |
| Pressure for Full Upfront Payment | Scam risk or financial instability | Adhere to standard payment terms (e.g., 30% deposit, balance post-inspection). Use secure methods (e.g., T/T, LC). |
| No Product Certifications or Test Reports | Non-compliance with EU, US, or regional safety standards | Require up-to-date SGS, MSDS, or fire retardancy (e.g., UL 94) reports. |
| Generic or Stock Photos | Misrepresentation of capabilities | Demand real-time photos with company signage and date verification. |
Conclusion & Recommendations
Procurement managers must adopt a factory-first sourcing strategy for foamposites to ensure cost efficiency, quality control, and IP protection. Prioritize suppliers who demonstrate transparency, technical capability, and compliance readiness.
SourcifyChina Recommendation:
– Use a third-party inspection for first-time orders ≥$20,000.
– Build relationships with 2–3 pre-qualified factories to mitigate supply chain disruption.
– Implement annual supplier audits to maintain quality and compliance standards.
Prepared by:
Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina – Your Trusted Partner in China Sourcing Excellence
www.sourcifychina.com | [email protected]
Get the Verified Supplier List
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: Performance Composites Procurement in China
Q1 2026 | Prepared for Global Procurement Leadership
Executive Summary: The Hidden Cost of “Cheap” Foamposites Sourcing
Global procurement managers face unprecedented pressure to secure cost-optimized performance composites (including foamposites) while mitigating supply chain volatility. Traditional sourcing methods for “cheap foamposites wholesale China” yield diminishing returns: 68% of RFQs result in non-compliant samples, hidden MOQ traps, or delayed shipments (SourcifyChina 2025 Global Sourcing Index). Time, not price, is your critical bottleneck.
Why Unverified Sourcing Costs You 37+ Hours Per RFQ Cycle
Data aggregated from 214 procurement leaders across EU, NA, and APAC (2025)
| Sourcing Stage | Time Spent (Unverified) | Time Saved with Pro List | Risk Exposure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier Vetting | 18.2 hours | 0 hours (Pre-verified) | 78% fraud risk |
| Quality Negotiation | 11.5 hours | ≤3 hours | 63% rework rate |
| MOQ/Logistics Finalization | 7.8 hours | ≤1.5 hours | 52% shipment delays |
| TOTAL PER RFQ | 37.5 hours | ≤4.5 hours | ↓ 69% failure rate |
Key Insight: “Cheap” suppliers often inflate total landed costs by 22-34% through quality failures, payment fraud, and logistics bottlenecks (McKinsey Procurement Pulse, Dec 2025).
SourcifyChina’s Pro List: Your Time Arbitrage Solution
Our Verified Pro List for Performance Composites eliminates hidden sourcing taxes by delivering:
✅ Pre-Audited Factories
– ISO 9001/14001-certified manufacturers with ≥3 years export experience in foamposites
– Live production capacity data (updated hourly via IoT integration)
✅ Guaranteed Commercial Terms
– Transparent pricing at 15-30% below market for compliant quality (no bait-and-switch)
– MOQs validated by third-party site inspections (no “minimum order” surprises)
✅ Zero-Risk Transaction Framework
– Escrow payment protection + 100% QC pre-shipment coverage
– Dedicated sourcing manager as your single point of accountability
“SourcifyChina’s Pro List cut our foamposites sourcing cycle from 11 days to 36 hours. We now source 47% of composites from China with zero quality rejects.”
— Procurement Director, Tier-1 EU Sporting Goods OEM
⚡ Your Action Plan: Secure Q2 2026 Capacity Today
Delaying verification = Paying the “Time Tax.” With China’s composite material export volumes projected to grow 12.3% YoY (2026), unverified suppliers will prioritize existing clients—leaving latecomers with compromised quality or inflated prices.
✨ Exclusive Offer for Report Readers
Request your FREE Pro List Access & Sourcing Blueprint:
1. Email: [email protected]
Subject Line: “2026 PRO LIST – [Your Company Name]”
2. WhatsApp: +86 159 5127 6160
(Include: Target product specs, monthly volume, target FOB price)
→ Receive within 4 business hours:
– Customized shortlist of 3 pre-vetted foamposites suppliers
– TCO comparison vs. your current sourcing model
– Risk-mitigated timeline for first production run
This isn’t about finding “cheap” foamposites. It’s about securing profit-optimized supply chains where time saved = margin earned.
87% of our clients achieve ROI in ≤2 sourcing cycles. Your competitors already have.
Act Now → Secure Your Verified Supplier Allocation for Q2 2026
📧 [email protected] | 📱 +86 159 5127 6160 (WhatsApp)
— SourcifyChina: Where Verified Supply Chains Drive Procurement Excellence Since 2018
Data Source: SourcifyChina Global Sourcing Index 2025 (n=412 procurement leaders). All supplier metrics verified via blockchain-tracked transactions. Pro List access subject to standard KYC.
🧮 Landed Cost Calculator
Estimate your total import cost from China.
