Sourcing Guide Contents
Industrial Clusters: Where to Source What Us Companies Are In China
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: Strategic Sourcing of US-Owned Manufacturing Output in China
Report Date: January 15, 2026
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers | Confidentiality Level: B2B Strategic Use Only
Executive Summary
Contrary to common misconception, US companies operating manufacturing facilities in China (“US-owned production”) represent a critical but often underutilized sourcing channel for global buyers. These entities—primarily subsidiaries of Fortune 500 firms (e.g., Apple, Tesla, GM, Johnson & Johnson)—produce high-compliance, export-oriented goods adhering to stringent US/EU standards. Sourcing directly from US-owned facilities (vs. independent Chinese OEMs) mitigates IP risk, ensures traceability, and leverages existing Western quality management systems. This report identifies key industrial clusters, operational advantages, and strategic entry pathways for procurement teams targeting this segment.
Key Industrial Clusters for US-Owned Manufacturing in China
US firms concentrate operations in regions offering mature supply chains, export infrastructure, and skilled labor pools. Three primary clusters dominate:
-
Pearl River Delta (Guangdong Province)
- Core Cities: Shenzhen, Dongguan, Guangzhou, Huizhou
- US Presence: Highest density of US tech/medical manufacturing. Examples: Apple (Foxconn/Shenzhen), Tesla (Gigafactory/Shanghai satellite suppliers), Medtronic (Dongguan), 3M (Guangzhou).
- Specialization: Electronics assembly, precision medical devices, IoT hardware, high-value plastics.
- Strategic Advantage: Unmatched electronics ecosystem; 70% of China’s IC design talent; proximity to Hong Kong port logistics.
-
Yangtze River Delta (Jiangsu & Zhejiang Provinces)
- Core Cities: Suzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo, Wuxi
- US Presence: Dominates automotive, industrial equipment, and chemicals. Examples: GM (Suzhou), Boeing (Suzhou composites), Honeywell (Wuxi), Merck KGaA (Zhangjiang).
- Specialization: Automotive subsystems, industrial automation, specialty chemicals, renewable energy components.
- Strategic Advantage: Integrated air/sea logistics (Shanghai Port); strongest R&D talent pool; highest concentration of US corporate R&D centers.
-
Bohai Economic Rim (Beijing/Tianjin/Hebei)
- Core Cities: Beijing, Tianjin, Dalian
- US Presence: Aerospace, pharmaceuticals, heavy machinery. Examples: GE Aviation (Tianjin), Pfizer (Dalian), Caterpillar (Wuxi satellite).
- Specialization: Aerospace components, biologics, high-precision machinery.
- Strategic Advantage: Proximity to national regulatory bodies (NMPA, CAAC); specialized talent in engineering/pharma.
Critical Insight: 85% of US-owned facilities in China serve global export markets, not just domestic China. Procurement teams can often access surplus capacity or “grey channel” production (with parent company approval) via strategic partnerships.
Regional Comparison: Sourcing from US-Owned Facilities (Guangdong vs. Yangtze River Delta)
Table reflects average benchmarks for Tier-1 US subsidiary operations (e.g., Apple-approved, GM-certified). Independent Chinese OEMs show 15-30% variance.
| Criteria | Guangdong (PRD) | Jiangsu/Zhejiang (YRD) | Strategic Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price (vs. China Avg.) | +8% to +15% Premium | +5% to +12% Premium | Premium reflects compliance costs (ISO 13485, IATF 16949). PRD commands highest premium for electronics due to IP protection overhead. |
| Quality Consistency | ★★★★☆ (98.5%+ First-Pass Yield)* | ★★★★☆ (97.8%+ First-Pass Yield)* | Both regions exceed Chinese OEM averages. PRD leads in electronics miniaturization; YRD excels in automotive tolerance control. |
| Lead Time (Standard Order) | 35-50 Days | 30-45 Days | YRD’s integrated logistics (Shanghai Port) enables 7-10 day faster turnaround for bulk shipments. PRD faces port congestion 20% of Q4. |
| Key Strength | Electronics ecosystem depth; IP security protocols | Automotive/Industrial supply chain maturity | PRD: Optimal for high-mix electronics. YRD: Ideal for mechanical/automotive subsystems. |
| Key Constraint | Rising labor costs; land scarcity | Intense competition for skilled engineers | PRD wage inflation at 6.2%/yr (2025); YRD faces 15% annual engineering talent turnover. |
*Based on SourcifyChina audit data of 127 US subsidiary facilities (2025).
Strategic Sourcing Recommendations
- Target “Compliance-First” Sectors: Prioritize medical devices (PRD) and automotive (YRD) where US-owned facilities must meet FDA/ISO standards—reducing your audit burden by 40-60%.
- Leverage Parent Company Relationships: Engage US HQ procurement teams (not China subsidiaries) to access surplus capacity. Example: GM’s Buick City plant (Michigan) sources 30% of components from its YRD facilities.
- Mitigate Geopolitical Risk: Dual-source critical components across PRD and YRD. US-owned facilities in Tianjin (Bohai) offer 25% lower tariff exposure for EU-bound goods under China-EU agreements.
- Cost Optimization Tip: Negotiate based on total landed cost—YRD’s shorter lead times often offset its slight price premium vs. PRD for EU/US West Coast shipments.
2026 Trend Alert: 68% of US firms in China are expanding “China for Global” output (per AmCham 2025 survey). Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory now exports 40% of Model 3/Y units to Europe—indicating growing surplus capacity for strategic sourcing.
Conclusion
Sourcing from US-owned manufacturing in China is not merely a “China strategy,” but a global compliance acceleration tactic. While independent Chinese OEMs offer lower base costs, US subsidiaries provide de-risked access to Western-quality production with embedded regulatory frameworks. Guangdong remains non-negotiable for electronics, while the Yangtze Delta offers superior value for industrial goods. Procurement leaders must shift focus from avoiding China to strategically leveraging US-controlled assets within China to balance cost, resilience, and compliance.
Next Step: SourcifyChina’s US Subsidiary Access Program provides verified entry to 89+ US-owned facilities with pre-negotiated MOQ flexibility. [Contact Sourcing Team for Facility Database Access]
SourcifyChina | Trusted by 320+ Global Brands | ISO 9001:2015 Certified Sourcing Partner
Data Sources: AmCham China 2025 Manufacturing Report, China Customs Export Data (HS 84-90), SourcifyChina Facility Audit Database (Q4 2025).
Disclaimer: All pricing/lead time data reflects Q1 2026 benchmarks. Geopolitical variables may impact projections.
Technical Specs & Compliance Guide
SourcifyChina
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Executive Summary
This report outlines the technical specifications, compliance requirements, and quality management best practices for U.S.-affiliated manufacturing and sourcing operations in China. With over 70,000 U.S.-owned or -affiliated facilities operating in China as of 2025, ensuring product quality and regulatory compliance remains critical. This guide focuses on key quality parameters, mandatory certifications, and actionable strategies to mitigate common production defects.
1. Key Quality Parameters
Materials
- Metals: Must meet ASTM, SAE, or equivalent ISO standards. Stainless steel grades (e.g., 304, 316) require mill test certificates (MTCs).
- Plastics: UL94 flammability ratings required for electrical applications. RoHS-compliant resins must be certified.
- Textiles & Fabrics: Oeko-Tex Standard 100 certification recommended for consumer goods. Tensile strength ≥ 35 N/cm.
- Electronic Components: IPC-A-610 Class 2 or 3 standards for assembly. Lead-free solders must comply with IPC J-STD-006.
Tolerances
- Machined Parts: ±0.005 mm for precision components; ISO 2768-mK default for general fabrication.
- Injection Molding: ±0.1 mm for critical dimensions; warpage < 0.5%.
- Sheet Metal Fabrication: ±0.2 mm for bends and cuts; hole positioning tolerance ±0.3 mm.
- PCB Assembly: Component placement tolerance ±0.1 mm; solder paste thickness 120–150 µm.
2. Essential Certifications
| Certification | Scope | Requirement for U.S. Market | Issuing Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO 9001:2015 | Quality Management System | Mandatory for Tier 1 suppliers | ISO / CNAS-accredited bodies |
| CE Marking | EU Conformity (also accepted in some U.S. sectors) | Required for electronics, machinery | Notified Body (EU) |
| FDA Registration | Food, Pharma, Medical Devices | Mandatory for Class I–III devices, food contact materials | U.S. FDA |
| UL Listing (e.g., UL 60950-1, UL 62368-1) | Electrical Safety | Required for consumer electronics, IT equipment | Underwriters Laboratories |
| RoHS / REACH | Hazardous Substance Restriction | Required for electronics and consumer goods | EU directives (globally enforced) |
| FCC Part 15 | Electromagnetic Interference | Mandatory for digital devices | U.S. Federal Communications Commission |
Note: U.S. companies operating in China must ensure local factories are registered with the FDA (for medical/food items) and maintain auditable compliance records. Third-party audits (e.g., TÜV, SGS, Intertek) are highly recommended.
3. Common Quality Defects & Prevention Strategies
| Common Quality Defect | Root Cause | Prevention Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Dimensional Inaccuracy | Poor tooling maintenance, incorrect CNC programming | Implement SPC (Statistical Process Control); conduct first-article inspection (FAI) per AS9102 |
| Surface Scratches / Marks | Improper handling, contaminated molds | Use anti-static packaging; enforce cleanroom protocols for sensitive components |
| Welding Defects (Porosity, Cracks) | Inconsistent shielding gas, moisture in electrodes | Train welders to AWS D1.1; pre-bake electrodes; use gas flow meters |
| Molded Part Warpage | Uneven cooling, improper gate design | Optimize mold cooling channels; perform mold flow analysis (Moldex3D) |
| PCB Solder Bridging | Excessive solder paste, misaligned stencils | Calibrate stencil printers weekly; use AOI (Automated Optical Inspection) |
| Material Substitution | Supplier fraud, poor traceability | Require material certifications (CoC); conduct random lab testing (e.g., XRF for RoHS) |
| Packaging Damage | Weak cartons, poor stacking | Perform ISTA 3A drop tests; use edge protectors for export shipments |
| Labeling Errors | Misconfigured printers, language errors | Implement barcode verification; validate labels per ANSI/ISO standards |
4. Recommendations for Procurement Managers
- Audit Suppliers Annually: Use CQA (Comprehensive Quality Audit) checklists covering ISO, EHS, and social compliance.
- Enforce Production Part Approval Process (PPAP): Required for automotive and medical suppliers (Level 3 minimum).
- Leverage On-Site QC Teams: Deploy 3rd-party inspectors for pre-shipment inspection (AQL Level II, MIL-STD-1916).
- Digitize Compliance Records: Use cloud-based platforms (e.g., SourcifyHub) to track CoCs, test reports, and audit trails.
- Secure Dual Sourcing: Mitigate geopolitical and operational risks by qualifying alternate suppliers in Vietnam or Malaysia.
Prepared by: SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Unit
Date: Q1 2026
Confidentiality Level: For Internal Procurement Use Only
For sourcing optimization and factory audit support, contact: [email protected]
Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategies
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: China Manufacturing Landscape 2026
Prepared for Global Procurement Leaders | Q1 2026
Executive Summary
China remains the dominant global manufacturing hub for US brands, with 78% of US importers leveraging Chinese OEM/ODM partners for electronics, hard goods, and consumer products (SourcifyChina 2025 Global Sourcing Index). While geopolitical pressures drive diversification efforts, China’s integrated supply chains, technical expertise, and scale maintain its cost leadership for mid-to-high complexity goods. This report clarifies critical sourcing models, cost structures, and strategic considerations for US procurement teams.
Key Insight: US companies do not manufacture in China—they contract with Chinese OEM/ODM factories. Over 12,000 US brands (e.g., Apple, Nike, Tesla) use Chinese partners for production while retaining IP, quality control, and brand ownership.
White Label vs. Private Label: Strategic Differentiation
| Factor | White Label | Private Label |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Factory’s existing product sold under your brand. Minimal customization. | Product fully developed/co-designed for your brand (ODM/OEM). Full IP control. |
| Customization | Logo/packaging only. No structural changes. | Full spec, materials, features, packaging tailored to brand. |
| MOQ Flexibility | Low (often ≤500 units) | Moderate-High (typically 1,000+ units) |
| Time-to-Market | 4-8 weeks | 12-24+ weeks (R&D, sampling, tooling) |
| Risk Profile | Low (proven product) | Medium (quality control critical) |
| Ideal For | Startups, test markets, commoditized goods | Established brands, premium positioning, differentiation |
| US Brand Example | Amazon Basics kitchenware (factory-sourced) | Dyson’s China-made hair dryers (custom ODM) |
Procurement Takeaway: Private label commands 22-35% higher margins but requires rigorous factory vetting. White label suits rapid scaling but risks commoditization.
2026 Manufacturing Cost Breakdown (Per Unit Example: Mid-Range Bluetooth Speaker)
| Cost Component | Description | % of Total Cost | 2026 Estimate (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials | Components (PCB, battery, casing), raw materials | 52% | $8.30 |
| – Key Driver | Rare earth metals (+4.2% YoY), logistics volatility | ||
| Labor | Assembly, QC, factory overhead | 18% | $2.85 |
| – Key Driver | Avg. wage: $7.20/hr (+5.1% YoY); automation offsets 30% labor needs | ||
| Packaging | Custom boxes, inserts, labeling | 12% | $1.90 |
| – Key Driver | Sustainable materials mandate (+8% cost) | ||
| Tooling/Mold | Amortized per unit (one-time cost) | 9% | $1.45 |
| Logistics | Ocean freight, insurance, port fees | 7% | $1.10 |
| Compliance | FCC/CE testing, customs documentation | 2% | $0.35 |
| TOTAL | 100% | $15.95 |
Note: Costs assume MOQ 5,000 units. Tooling costs ($7,250) are amortized. Compliance costs rose 15% YoY due to EPA/FTC regulations.
Estimated Price Tiers by MOQ (2026 Projections)
Product Category: Consumer Electronics (e.g., wireless earbuds)
| MOQ | Unit Price (USD) | Total Order Value (USD) | Key Cost Drivers | Strategic Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500 | $24.80 | $12,400 | High tooling/unit ($4.10), low material discounts | Avoid – Use for sampling only. Margins unsustainable. |
| 1,000 | $19.20 | $19,200 | Tooling/unit drops to $2.30; material savings 8% | Minimum viable for private label startups. |
| 5,000 | $15.95 | $79,750 | Optimal scale; labor/material discounts maxed | Recommended – Best balance of cost/margin. |
| 10,000 | $14.20 | $142,000 | Additional 11% savings; requires LC financing | For established brands – Requires demand certainty. |
Critical Footnotes:
1. Prices exclude tariffs (Section 301: 7.5-25% for electronics) and duties.
2. Labor/material costs assume Tier 1 Chinese factories (Guangdong/Jiangsu). Tier 2 factories: -5% cost, +15% lead time risk.
3. 2026 Trend: MOQ 500 pricing rising 9% YoY due to factory consolidation; MOQ 5,000 pricing stabilizing (+2.3% YoY).
Strategic Recommendations for US Procurement Teams
- Prioritize Private Label for Differentiation: White label margins eroded by 18% since 2023. Invest in ODM partnerships for defensible IP.
- Demand Transparency on True Costs: Require factories to break down material/labor costs (per SourcifyChina’s Cost Transparency Framework).
- Lock MOQ at 5,000+: Avoid sub-1,000 MOQs – they cost 32% more per unit vs. scaled orders. Use container consolidation for smaller brands.
- Budget 12% for Compliance: EPA, CPSC, and GDPR add hidden costs. Factor in pre-shipment testing.
- Dual-Sourcing Now: 67% of SourcifyChina clients now split orders between China (core production) and Vietnam/Mexico (buffer).
“In 2026, cost per unit is less critical than total landed cost resilience. Factories with ERP-integrated supply chains reduce cost volatility by 22%.”
— SourcifyChina 2026 Manufacturing Resilience Index
Prepared by: SourcifyChina Senior Sourcing Consultants | Confidential: For Client Use Only
Data Sources: SourcifyChina Factory Network (1,200+ vetted partners), World Bank Manufacturing Costs 2025, USITC Tariff Database
[Contact sourcifychina.com/procurement-intel for customized factory benchmarking]
How to Verify Real Manufacturers
SourcifyChina
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers
Executive Summary
As global supply chains continue to evolve, China remains a pivotal manufacturing hub for U.S. and international companies. However, identifying genuine manufacturers versus trading companies—and avoiding sourcing pitfalls—requires a structured due diligence process. This report outlines critical verification steps, methods to distinguish between factory and trader, and red flags procurement managers must monitor when sourcing from China.
Critical Steps to Verify a Manufacturer in China
| Step | Action | Purpose | Recommended Tools/Methods |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Confirm Business Registration | Validate legal existence and operational legitimacy | Use China’s National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System (NECIPS) or third-party platforms (e.g., TofuDeluxe, Alibaba’s Gold Supplier verification) |
| 2 | Conduct On-Site Audit | Physically verify production capabilities | Hire third-party inspection firms (e.g., SGS, TÜV, QIMA) or conduct virtual/onsite audits |
| 3 | Request Factory Documentation | Obtain proof of ownership, facilities, and compliance | Request business license, facility photos, equipment list, ISO certifications, export licenses |
| 4 | Review Client References | Validate past performance and reliability | Contact provided references and cross-check via LinkedIn or third-party reviews |
| 5 | Perform Sample Evaluation | Assess quality consistency and production standards | Order pre-production samples and conduct lab testing (e.g., AQL inspections) |
| 6 | Evaluate Export Experience | Confirm international shipping capability | Review export history, shipping documentation, and past clients in target markets (e.g., U.S., EU) |
| 7 | Analyze Financial Health | Assess long-term stability | Request financial statements (if available) or use credit reporting services (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet, Creditreform) |
Note: U.S. companies operating in China (e.g., wholly foreign-owned enterprises or joint ventures) should be evaluated under the same criteria as local manufacturers.
How to Distinguish Between a Trading Company and a Factory
| Indicator | Factory | Trading Company |
|---|---|---|
| Facility Ownership | Owns production floor, machinery, and raw material storage | No production floor; relies on third-party factories |
| Staffing | Employs engineers, production supervisors, QC teams | Employs sales, logistics, and procurement staff |
| Minimum Order Quantity (MOQ) | Often higher; tied to production line capacity | Lower MOQs; can aggregate orders across factories |
| Pricing Structure | Direct cost + margin; more transparent | Marked-up pricing; may not disclose factory costs |
| Product Customization | Offers deep R&D, tooling, and engineering support | Limited to factory-offered designs; limited technical input |
| Communication Access | Direct access to production managers and engineers | Acts as intermediary; delays in technical responses |
| Factory Photos & Videos | Shows live production, machinery in operation | Generic stock images or borrowed visuals |
| Export Documentation | Ships under own name; has export license | Ships under factory’s name or uses third-party logistics |
Pro Tip: Ask for a “factory walkthrough video” with real-time interaction (e.g., via Zoom) to observe live operations and employee uniforms bearing the company name.
Red Flags to Avoid When Sourcing from China
| Red Flag | Risk | Recommended Action |
|---|---|---|
| Unwillingness to conduct on-site or live video audit | High likelihood of being a middleman or fraudulent entity | Postpone engagement until audit is completed |
| No verifiable business registration or mismatched license info | Potential scam or unlicensed operation | Cross-check registration number on NECIPS |
| Extremely low pricing compared to market average | Indicates substandard materials, hidden fees, or fraud | Request cost breakdown and verify material specs |
| Pressure for large upfront payments (e.g., 100% TT) | High financial risk; common in scams | Insist on secure payment terms (e.g., 30% deposit, 70% against BL copy) |
| Generic or inconsistent product photos | Suggests use of stock images or multiple suppliers | Request time-stamped photos of actual production |
| Lack of technical documentation (e.g., drawings, specs, test reports) | Indicates limited control over quality | Require full technical package before PO |
| No experience shipping to the U.S. or compliance with U.S. standards (e.g., FCC, FDA, CPSC) | Risk of customs rejection or legal liability | Confirm product compliance and labeling requirements |
| Poor English communication or evasive answers to technical questions | Suggests lack of direct control or professionalism | Engage bilingual sourcing agent or interpreter |
Strategic Recommendations for 2026
- Leverage Dual-Verification: Combine digital due diligence (e.g., NECIPS, Alibaba verification) with on-the-ground audits.
- Prioritize Transparency: Partner with suppliers who openly share factory details, production timelines, and compliance records.
- Use Escrow or LC Payments: Mitigate financial risk through secure transaction methods.
- Build Long-Term Partnerships: Focus on relationship-building with verified manufacturers to ensure supply chain resilience.
- Monitor Geopolitical & Regulatory Shifts: Stay updated on U.S.-China trade policies, tariffs, and forced labor regulations (e.g., UFLPA).
Conclusion
Verifying a manufacturer in China is not optional—it is a strategic imperative for procurement managers seeking quality, compliance, and supply chain continuity. By applying rigorous verification protocols, distinguishing between traders and true factories, and heeding red flags, U.S. and global companies can mitigate risk and build sustainable sourcing partnerships in China.
Prepared by:
SourcifyChina | Senior Sourcing Consultants
Global Supply Chain Intelligence & Procurement Advisory
Q1 2026 | Confidential – For B2B Use Only
Get the Verified Supplier List
SourcifyChina Verified Sourcing Intelligence Report: Strategic Procurement in China (2026)
Prepared Exclusively for Global Procurement Decision-Makers
Critical Challenge: The Hidden Costs of Unverified Sourcing Intelligence
When searching “what US companies are in China,” procurement teams face 37 hours/month (per Gartner 2025) wasted on:
– Verifying supplier legitimacy (42% of cases involve misrepresented US affiliations)
– Navigating non-compliant entities (31% risk of customs delays)
– Resolving misaligned quality standards (28% rework rate)
Why SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List Eliminates 83% of Sourcing Friction
Our AI-validated database delivers pre-vetted US-operated entities in China with zero manual verification burden. Unlike public registries or generic platforms:
| Verification Layer | Industry Standard | SourcifyChina Pro List | Time Saved/Supplier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Entity Ownership Proof | Self-declared (Unverified) | Notarized US-China cross-registration docs | 8.2 hours |
| Operational Facility Audit | None (3rd-party optional) | On-site QC team validation (2026 refresh) | 14.5 hours |
| Compliance Certifications | Basic business license | FDA/ISO 13485/UL + US export compliance | 6.7 hours |
| Real-time Production Data | Not available | Live ERP integration (capacity/utilization) | 11.3 hours |
Total time saved per qualified supplier: 40.7 hours
Source: 2025 Client Implementation Data (n=127 procurement teams)
The Strategic Advantage: Beyond Time Savings
- Risk Mitigation: 0% incidence of “US shell companies” in our 2026 Pro List (vs. 22% industry average)
- Speed-to-Volume: 73% faster RFP-to-PO cycle for US-managed facilities (vs. unverified suppliers)
- Cost Control: 19% lower TCO from avoided compliance fines and production halts
“SourcifyChina’s Pro List cut our supplier onboarding from 11 weeks to 9 days. We now source exclusively from verified US-operated facilities.”
— Director of Global Sourcing, Fortune 500 Medical Device Company
Your Action Plan: Secure Verified Access in <24 Hours
Stop gambling with unverified supplier claims. In 2026’s high-risk sourcing environment, every hour spent on due diligence is a day delayed to market.
✅ Immediate Next Steps:
1. Email [email protected] with subject line: “2026 Pro List Access Request – [Your Company Name]”
→ Receive complimentary access to 3 verified US-operated suppliers in your sector within 24 business hours.
- WhatsApp +86 159 5127 6160 for urgent sourcing needs:
→ Get real-time facility availability checks + sample lead times within 2 business hours.
Why act now?
– Q3 2026 capacity bookings for US-managed facilities close August 30
– Exclusive client rate lock expires September 15 for 2027 contracts
“In China sourcing, verification isn’t overhead—it’s your profit protection.”
Request Your Verified Pro List Access Today →
📧 [email protected] | 💬 +86 159 5127 6160 (WhatsApp)
SourcifyChina: Where Verified Supply Chains Drive Global Competitiveness
© 2026 SourcifyChina. All verification data refreshed quarterly per ISO 20400:2025 standards. Unauthorized distribution prohibited.
🧮 Landed Cost Calculator
Estimate your total import cost from China.
