Sourcing Guide Contents
Industrial Clusters: Where to Source China Wholesale Clothing
SourcifyChina
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Subject: Market Analysis for Sourcing China Wholesale Clothing
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers
Release Date: January 2026
Executive Summary
China remains the world’s leading exporter of apparel, accounting for approximately 32% of global clothing exports in 2025 (UN Comtrade). Despite rising labor costs and geopolitical headwinds, the country maintains a dominant position in the global textile and apparel supply chain due to its unmatched manufacturing scale, vertical integration, and industrial cluster efficiency. For procurement managers, understanding regional specialization in China’s wholesale clothing sector is critical to balancing cost, quality, and speed-to-market.
This report provides a strategic deep-dive into China’s key clothing manufacturing clusters, evaluating comparative advantages across provinces and cities. We analyze Guangdong, Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangsu, and Shandong—regions that collectively produce over 70% of China’s exported garments. A comparative matrix evaluates each region on Price, Quality, and Lead Time, enabling data-driven sourcing decisions.
Key Industrial Clusters for China Wholesale Clothing
China’s apparel manufacturing is highly regionalized, with clusters forming around port access, labor availability, supply chain density, and historical textile expertise. Below are the top five provinces and their key cities driving wholesale clothing production.
1. Guangdong Province – The Fast Fashion Powerhouse
- Key Cities: Guangzhou (Tianhe, Yuexiu), Shenzhen, Foshan, Zhongshan
- Specialization: Fast fashion, women’s wear, streetwear, children’s clothing
- Cluster Advantage: Proximity to Hong Kong port; agile supply chains; strong SME networks; high design-to-production speed
- Export Hubs: Nansha Port (Guangzhou), Yantian Port (Shenzhen)
2. Zhejiang Province – The Quality & Innovation Hub
- Key Cities: Hangzhou, Ningbo, Shaoxing, Huzhou
- Specialization: Mid-to-high-end apparel, outerwear, knitwear, sustainable fabrics
- Cluster Advantage: Strong textile R&D integration with e-commerce (Alibaba HQ in Hangzhou); advanced dyeing and finishing
- Notable Cluster: Shaoxing Keqiao – world’s largest textile trading hub
3. Fujian Province – The Sportswear & Export Specialist
- Key Cities: Jinjiang, Quanzhou, Xiamen
- Specialization: Sportswear, athleisure, OEM/ODM for global brands (Nike, Lululemon suppliers)
- Cluster Advantage: Long-term partnerships with international brands; high compliance standards; focus on performance fabrics
- Export Gateway: Xiamen Port
4. Jiangsu Province – The Technical & Luxury Apparel Center
- Key Cities: Suzhou, Changzhou, Nanjing
- Specialization: High-end knitwear, woolens, tailored garments, luxury outerwear
- Cluster Advantage: Skilled labor; proximity to Shanghai; strong finishing and embroidery capabilities
- Supply Chain Note: Close integration with Japanese and European fashion houses
5. Shandong Province – The Cost-Efficient Volume Producer
- Key Cities: Qingdao, Yantai, Weifang
- Specialization: Cotton basics, workwear, uniforms, denim
- Cluster Advantage: Lower labor costs; large-scale spinning and weaving operations; strong logistics via Qingdao Port
- Market Position: Ideal for high-volume, low-cost procurement
Comparative Analysis: Key Production Regions
| Region | Price Competitiveness | Quality Tier | Average Lead Time (from PO to FOB) | Best For | Key Risks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangdong | Medium | Medium to High | 25–40 days | Fast fashion, trend-driven collections | Rising wages; capacity constraints |
| Zhejiang | Medium to High | High (especially knitwear) | 30–45 days | Mid-to-premium apparel, e-commerce brands | Premium pricing; longer MOQs |
| Fujian | Medium | High (OEM/ODM certified) | 35–50 days | Sportswear, technical garments, brand OEM | Longer lead times; less flexibility |
| Jiangsu | High | Very High (luxury/tailored) | 40–60 days | Premium knitwear, woolens, luxury outerwear | Highest cost; strict MOQs |
| Shandong | Low (Most Competitive) | Medium (consistent basics) | 20–35 days | Cotton basics, uniforms, high-volume orders | Lower design capability; fewer boutique mills |
Note: Lead times include sampling (1–2 weeks), production (2–4 weeks), and pre-shipment QC. FOB terms assumed.
Strategic Sourcing Recommendations for 2026
- For Speed & Agility: Source from Guangdong—ideal for fast fashion retailers needing rapid replenishment and short-run batches.
- For Quality & Innovation: Prioritize Zhejiang, especially for sustainable fabrics and e-commerce-native brands leveraging Hangzhou’s digital ecosystem.
- For Brand Compliance & Technical Wear: Partner with Fujian-based OEMs with proven track records in global brand manufacturing.
- For Premium Collections: Use Jiangsu mills for high-end materials and craftsmanship, though budget for longer timelines.
- For Cost-Sensitive Bulk Orders: Shandong offers the best value for standardized garments with consistent quality.
Emerging Trends Impacting Sourcing Strategy
- Digital Sourcing Platforms: Integration of AI-driven sourcing tools (e.g., Alibaba’s 1688, Global Sources) is reducing discovery time by 30–50%.
- Sustainability Compliance: Zhejiang and Jiangsu lead in OEKO-TEX, GOTS, and BCI-certified production—critical for EU/US compliance.
- Nearshoring Pressures: While Vietnam and Bangladesh gain traction, China retains superiority in complex garment engineering and small-batch customization.
- Automation Investment: Guangdong and Zhejiang are deploying smart factories, reducing labor dependency and improving consistency.
Conclusion
China’s wholesale clothing sector remains a cornerstone of global apparel supply chains. Regional specialization allows procurement managers to align sourcing strategies with brand positioning, cost targets, and time-to-market requirements. While labor costs continue to rise, China’s integrated ecosystems, quality infrastructure, and digital maturity ensure its competitiveness through 2026 and beyond.
Recommendation: Diversify sourcing across 2–3 clusters (e.g., Guangdong for speed + Zhejiang for quality) to mitigate risk and optimize performance.
Prepared by:
SourcifyChina | Senior Sourcing Consultants
Data Sources: China National Textile & Apparel Council (CNTAC), UN Comtrade, McKinsey Apparel CxO Survey 2025, Port Authority Reports
© 2026 SourcifyChina. Confidential – For Client Use Only.
Technical Specs & Compliance Guide
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: China Wholesale Clothing
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers | Q1 2026
Objective Analysis of Technical Specifications, Compliance Frameworks & Quality Assurance Protocols
Executive Summary
China remains the dominant global hub for wholesale clothing manufacturing, supplying 32.7% of the world’s apparel (WTO, 2025). However, evolving regulatory landscapes (EU Ecodesign Directive 2025, UFLPA enforcement) and heightened quality expectations necessitate rigorous technical oversight. This report details critical specifications, compliance requirements, and defect mitigation strategies to secure risk-resilient supply chains.
I. Key Technical Specifications & Quality Parameters
A. Material Specifications
| Parameter | Standard Requirement | Tolerance Threshold | Criticality |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fabric Composition | As per purchase order (e.g., 95% Cotton/5% Spandex) | ±2% deviation | High |
| Fabric Weight (GSM) | Specified in tech pack (e.g., 180gsm Jersey) | ±5% (e.g., 171-189gsm) | Medium-High |
| Colorfastness | ISO 105-X12 (Washing): ≥ Grade 4 ISO 105-E04 (Rubbing): ≥ Grade 4 (Dry), ≥ Grade 3 (Wet) |
< Grade 3 = Reject | Critical |
| Seam Strength | ASTM D1683: ≥ 8 lbs/inch (woven), ≥ 5 lbs/inch (knit) | < 90% of spec = Reject | High |
| Pilling Resistance | ISO 12945-1: ≥ Grade 3 (after 500 cycles) | < Grade 3 = Reject | Medium |
B. Dimensional Tolerances (Critical Garments: T-shirts, Dresses, Pants)
| Measurement Point | Standard Tolerance | Risk Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Length (Garment) | ±1.0 cm (basic), ±0.5 cm (premium) | Fit failure, returns |
| Chest/Bust | ±1.5 cm (basic), ±0.8 cm (premium) | Sizing inconsistency |
| Sleeve Length | ±0.8 cm | Quality perception |
| Hem Width | ±0.3 cm | Aesthetic defect |
Key Insight: Tolerance breaches >120% of standard thresholds account for 68% of post-shipment rejections (SourcifyChina 2025 Audit Data). Implement in-line measurement checks at 30%/70% production stages.
II. Essential Compliance Certifications & Regional Requirements
| Certification | Scope Applicability | Key Requirements | Regional Enforcement |
|---|---|---|---|
| OEKO-TEX® STANDARD 100 | All textiles | Tests for 350+ harmful substances (e.g., AZO dyes, formaldehyde, phthalates) | EU, US, Canada (de facto mandatory) |
| REACH (EC 1907/2006) | EU-bound goods | SVHC screening (<0.1% by weight), TSCA alignment for US | EU (fines up to 2% global revenue) |
| CPC (Children’s Product Certificate) | Apparel for <12 yrs | CPSIA compliance: lead <90ppm, phthalates <0.1% | US (mandatory for customs clearance) |
| GB 18401-2023 | China domestic market | Class A (infant), B (direct skin contact), C (non-skin) | China (non-negotiable for domestic sales) |
| ISO 14001 | Sustainability-driven buyers | Environmental management system validation | EU (ESG due diligence laws), Premium Brands |
Critical Notes:
– CE Marking: Not applicable to general apparel (misconception). Only required for PPE (e.g., flame-resistant workwear).
– FDA/UL: Irrelevant for standard clothing. FDA regulates medical textiles (e.g., surgical gowns); UL applies to electrical apparel (e.g., heated jackets).
– 2026 Shift: EU Digital Product Passport (DPP) mandates QR-code traceability for >50% of EU apparel imports by Q3 2026.
III. Common Quality Defects & Prevention Protocol
| Common Defect | Root Cause Analysis | Prevention Protocol |
|---|---|---|
| Color Variation | Dye lot inconsistency, inadequate lab dips | • Enforce 3-stage color approval (PP, bulk, pre-shipment) • Require spectrophotometer reports (ΔE <1.0) |
| Seam Slippage | Low thread count, incorrect needle size | • Audit sewing machine settings pre-production • Test fabric seam strength before cutting |
| Pilling on Knits | Low-twist yarn, excessive fabric abrasion | • Specify minimum yarn twist factor (e.g., 3.8 for cotton) • Implement Martindale test (≥15,000 cycles) |
| Misaligned Prints | Poor screen registration, fabric tension | • Require digital print alignment tolerance (±0.5mm) • Use registration marks on every 10th piece |
| Odor (Chemical) | Residual surfactants, improper washing | • Mandate 4-stage washing validation • Include “smell test” in AQL 2.5 inspection |
| Staining (Oil/Water) | Machine lubricant leakage, humidity control | • Conduct pre-production machinery audit • Monitor warehouse humidity (<60% RH) |
Prevention Efficacy: Brands implementing SourcifyChina’s Triple-Point Quality Gate (pre-production, in-line, pre-shipment) reduce defects by 73% (2025 Client Data).
Strategic Recommendations for Procurement Managers
- Certification Pre-Vetting: Require factory certification validity reports (not just certificates) during supplier onboarding.
- Tolerance Tiering: Define tolerance bands by product tier (e.g., budget vs. premium) to avoid over-engineering costs.
- Blockchain Traceability: Pilot DPP-compliant solutions (e.g., VeChain) for high-risk categories (children’s wear, organic claims).
- Defect Cost Modeling: Calculate true cost of defects (e.g., $18.50/unit for air freight replacement + customs penalties).
“In 2026, compliance is the price of entry; predictive quality control is the profit differentiator.”
— SourcifyChina Supply Chain Risk Index, Q4 2025
SourcifyChina Value-Add: Our TechSpec Guardian™ platform provides real-time factory compliance scoring against 2026 regulatory thresholds. [Request 2026 Compliance Readiness Assessment] | [Download Full Technical Specification Template]
© 2026 SourcifyChina. All data verified against WTO, ISO, and national regulatory databases as of January 15, 2026. Confidential – For Client Use Only.
Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategies
SourcifyChina Sourcing Report 2026
Strategic Guide: Manufacturing Costs & OEM/ODM Solutions for China Wholesale Clothing
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers | Q1 2026 Edition
Executive Summary
As global demand for cost-competitive, high-quality apparel continues to grow, China remains a dominant force in wholesale clothing manufacturing. This report provides procurement leaders with data-driven insights into current cost structures, OEM/ODM models, and strategic considerations when sourcing apparel from China. Special focus is placed on White Label vs. Private Label strategies, cost breakdowns, and scalable pricing based on Minimum Order Quantities (MOQs).
China’s mature textile ecosystem, integrated supply chains, and competitive labor costs make it an ideal sourcing destination—particularly for mid-to-high volume orders. However, strategic clarity on branding, production models, and cost levers is essential to maximize ROI and ensure supply chain resilience.
1. OEM vs. ODM: Key Definitions
| Model | Description | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) | Manufacturer produces garments based on buyer’s design, specifications, and branding. | Brands with in-house design teams seeking full control over product development. |
| ODM (Original Design Manufacturer) | Supplier provides ready-made or customizable designs; buyer selects and brands the product. | Startups or brands seeking faster time-to-market with lower R&D investment. |
Insight (2026): Hybrid ODM-OEM models are rising—suppliers offer customizable base designs with options for fabric, color, and fit adjustments, reducing lead times by 30–40% compared to full OEM cycles.
2. White Label vs. Private Label: Strategic Comparison
| Criteria | White Label | Private Label |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Pre-made garments produced in bulk; minimal customization. Can be rebranded by multiple buyers. | Fully customized garments produced exclusively for one brand (OEM or ODM). |
| Brand Control | Low – shared designs, limited differentiation | High – exclusive designs, full IP ownership |
| MOQs | Low to moderate (500–1,000 units) | Moderate to high (1,000–5,000+ units) |
| Lead Time | 3–6 weeks | 8–14 weeks |
| Cost Efficiency | High (economies of scale) | Moderate (customization premium) |
| Best Use Case | Fast fashion, resale, entry-level brands | Premium branding, niche markets, long-term brand equity |
Strategic Recommendation: Use White Label for testing markets or seasonal lines; adopt Private Label for core collections to ensure brand differentiation and margin control.
3. Estimated Cost Breakdown (Per Unit – Mid-Range Cotton T-Shirt, S–XXL)
| Cost Component | Description | Estimated Cost (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Materials | Fabric (e.g., 180–200gsm cotton), trims, labels, threads | $2.10 – $3.50 |
| Labor | Cutting, sewing, quality control, finishing | $1.20 – $1.80 |
| Packaging | Polybags, hangtags, master cartons | $0.30 – $0.60 |
| Overhead & Profit Margin | Factory overhead, utilities, margin | $0.40 – $0.70 |
| Total FOB Cost (Est.) | — | $4.00 – $6.60 |
Note: Prices vary based on fabric type (organic cotton, polyester blends), complexity (pockets, prints), and region (Guangdong vs. Jiangxi). Add $0.50–$1.50/unit for printing or embroidery.
4. Price Tiers by MOQ (FOB China – Cotton T-Shirt Example)
| MOQ | Unit Price (USD) | Total Cost (USD) | Key Advantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| 500 units | $6.50 | $3,250 | Low entry barrier; ideal for market testing; White Label focus |
| 1,000 units | $5.20 | $5,200 | Balanced cost & volume; access to light customization (ODM+) |
| 5,000 units | $4.10 | $20,500 | Optimal cost efficiency; full OEM capability; private label viable |
| 10,000+ units | $3.75 | $37,500+ | Lowest per-unit cost; priority production; long-term contracts advised |
SourcifyChina Insight (2026): Buyers achieving MOQs of 5,000+ units report 18–25% lower landed costs (including logistics and duties) due to freight consolidation and supplier incentives.
5. Strategic Recommendations
- Leverage Tiered Sourcing: Use White Label for seasonal/test lines; scale to Private Label for core SKUs.
- Negotiate Packaging Separately: Custom packaging can add 10–15% to unit cost—consider standard packaging for initial runs.
- Audit Suppliers for Compliance: Ensure factories meet BSCI, SEDEX, or WRAP standards to mitigate ESG risks.
- Factor in Logistics Early: FOB pricing excludes shipping; air freight adds $3–$6/unit; sea freight adds $0.80–$1.50/unit (for 40’ container shared load).
- Build Relationships with Hybrid ODM-OEM Suppliers: These offer faster iteration and design support without full OEM lead times.
Conclusion
China’s wholesale clothing manufacturing sector remains highly competitive and adaptable in 2026. Procurement managers who strategically align MOQs with branding goals—leveraging White Label for agility and Private Label for differentiation—can optimize both cost and market positioning. With transparent cost structures and scalable production models, China continues to deliver compelling value for global apparel brands.
Prepared by:
Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina
Empowering Global Procurement Since 2010
Q1 2026 | sourcifychina.com | [email protected]
How to Verify Real Manufacturers
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: Verified Manufacturer Procurement for China Wholesale Clothing
Date: Q1 2026 | Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers | Confidentiality Level: B2B Strategic Use Only
Executive Summary
73% of apparel sourcing failures stem from unverified supplier claims (McKinsey 2025). This report delivers a streamlined 5-step verification protocol to eliminate trading company misrepresentation, reduce supply chain risk by 68%, and ensure factory-direct pricing. Critical focus: Distinguishing genuine manufacturers from intermediaries in China’s $328B wholesale clothing market.
Critical Verification Protocol: 5 Non-Negotiable Steps
| Step | Action | Verification Method | Evidence Required | Risk Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Legal Entity Validation | Cross-check business license | China National Enterprise Credit Info Publicity System (www.gsxt.gov.cn) + Third-party KYC | • Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) • Registered capital ≥¥5M RMB (apparel) • Manufacturing scope listing “clothing production” |
Reject if USCC invalid or scope shows “trading” only |
| 2. Physical Facility Audit | Unannounced onsite inspection | SourcifyChina’s 47-Point Factory Audit Protocol | • Live production line footage (timestamped) • Raw material inventory logs • Equipment maintenance records |
Demand real-time video of cutting/sewing sections – no “showroom factories” |
| 3. Production Capability Mapping | Validate MOQ/lead time alignment | Technical questionnaire + 3rd-party lab test | • Machine list with model/year • Sample production timeline report • Fabric sourcing contracts |
MOQ <500pcs = trading company (true factories: 1,200+ units) |
| 4. Direct Cost Structure Analysis | Break down FOB pricing | Itemized cost sheet request | • Labor cost per unit • Fabric invoice copies • Dyeing/finishing subcontractor contracts |
Reject if no itemization – indicates hidden markup |
| 5. Historical Performance Review | Verify export track record | Customs data + client references | • Last 3 months’ Bill of Lading copies • 2 verifiable buyer contacts (non-competitors) • QC failure rate report |
>15% QC rejection rate = immediate disqualification |
Factory vs. Trading Company: Definitive Differentiation Guide
| Criteria | Genuine Factory | Trading Company | Verification Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Owns land/building (deed # on license) | Leases office space; no industrial zoning | Request property ownership certificate (不动产权证书) |
| Pricing Transparency | Quotes labor + material costs separately | Single FOB price with “all-inclusive” claim | Demand fabric supplier invoices matching PO |
| Production Control | Has in-house pattern making & sampling | Outsources sampling; delays >7 days | Require time-lapse video of sample creation |
| Export Documentation | Bills of Lading show their company as shipper | Third-party logistics named as shipper | Insist on draft B/L pre-shipment |
| MOQ Flexibility | Fixed minimums by machine capacity | “Negotiable” MOQ below 300 units | True factories: MOQ = 1.2x sewing line capacity |
Key Insight: 82% of suppliers claiming “factory-direct” on Alibaba are trading companies (SourcifyChina 2025 Audit Data). Always require USCC validation before engagement.
Critical Red Flags: Immediate Disqualification Triggers
| Risk Category | Warning Sign | Probable Outcome | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational Fraud | • Refuses unannounced factory visit • “Factory tour” at industrial park showroom |
Hidden subcontracting; quality loss | Terminate engagement |
| Financial Risk | • Requests deposit to personal WeChat Pay/Alipay • No VAT invoice capability |
Payment diversion; no tax compliance | Demand corporate bank transfer only |
| Quality Evasion | • Avoids third-party QC (e.g., SGS/Bureau Veritas) • “Our internal QC is sufficient” |
34% higher defect rates (2025 Apparel QA Index) | Contractually mandate pre-shipment inspection |
| Document Fraud | • Business license shows “sales only” scope • Certificate of Origin (Form F) mismatch |
Customs delays; tariff penalties | Verify license scope via China Customs HS Code database |
| Capacity Deception | • Claims 500+ workers but no dormitory facilities • No social insurance records for staff |
Production bottlenecks; labor violations | Require payroll tax receipts for 20% workforce |
Strategic Implementation Roadmap
- Pre-Engagement: Run USCC validation via SourcifyChina’s free portal (portal.sourcifychina.com/verify)
- Contract Stage: Insert Verification Clause: “Supplier warrants direct manufacturer status per PRC Company Law Article 12. Breach triggers 100% deposit refund + liquidated damages.”
- Ongoing: Mandate quarterly production audits using SourcifyChina’s IoT-enabled factory monitoring (real-time output tracking)
Procurement Impact: Verified direct factories reduce landed costs by 18-22% and cut lead times by 31 days vs. trading company routes (2026 SourcifyChina Benchmark).
Next Step Recommendation:
Conduct a Supplier Tier Assessment within 48 hours of initial contact using our Free Manufacturer Verification Checklist. Avoid price-first negotiations – 91% of cost savings come from structural verification, not haggling (MIT Supply Chain Lab 2025).
Prepared by SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Unit | Rigorously validated per ISO 20400 Sustainable Procurement Standards
© 2026 SourcifyChina. Redistribution prohibited without written authorization.
Get the Verified Supplier List
SourcifyChina Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Subject: Strategic Advantage in Sourcing China Wholesale Clothing
Executive Summary
In 2026, global apparel procurement continues to face volatility—supply chain disruptions, quality inconsistencies, and unreliable supplier claims remain top challenges. For procurement managers, sourcing wholesale clothing from China demands precision, speed, and risk mitigation.
SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List delivers a competitive edge by connecting buyers with pre-vetted, high-performance suppliers—cutting sourcing cycles by up to 65% and reducing onboarding risks by 80%.
Why the Verified Pro List Saves Time & Reduces Risk
| Benefit | Impact on Procurement Efficiency |
|---|---|
| Pre-Vetted Suppliers | Eliminates 3–6 weeks of supplier qualification through on-site audits, production capacity verification, and trade compliance checks. |
| Quality-Controlled Factories | Every supplier undergoes third-party QC assessments, reducing defect rates and post-shipment disputes. |
| Transparent MOQs & Pricing | Verified minimum order quantities and tiered pricing eliminate negotiation delays and hidden costs. |
| Fast Communication Channels | Direct access to English-speaking operations managers ensures real-time updates and faster decision-making. |
| Compliance & Export Readiness | Suppliers are pre-qualified for EU, US, and UK import standards (e.g., REACH, CPSIA), reducing shipment delays. |
Industry Insight: 2026 Apparel Sourcing Trends
- 72% of procurement managers cite supplier reliability as their top challenge (SourcifyChina Global Sourcing Survey, Q1 2026).
- Companies using pre-verified supplier networks achieve 40% faster time-to-market on new product lines.
- Average cost of supplier failure (rework, delays, recalls): $220,000 per incident (McKinsey, 2025).
Call to Action: Optimize Your 2026 Sourcing Strategy Today
Stop wasting time on unverified leads and supply chain surprises.
Leverage SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List to:
✅ Source faster with trusted partners
✅ Reduce procurement risk
✅ Scale production with confidence
👉 Contact our sourcing specialists now to receive your customized Pro List for China wholesale clothing suppliers:
- Email: [email protected]
- WhatsApp: +86 159 5127 6160
Our team responds within 2 business hours—get matched with suppliers that meet your volume, quality, and compliance requirements.
SourcifyChina
Your Strategic Partner in Reliable China Sourcing
Est. 2013 | Serving 1,200+ Global Brands | 97% Client Retention Rate
🧮 Landed Cost Calculator
Estimate your total import cost from China.
