{"id":39697,"date":"2022-01-18T15:54:41","date_gmt":"2022-01-18T15:54:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sisinternational.com\/?page_id=39697"},"modified":"2026-05-05T16:17:52","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T20:17:52","slug":"investigacion-de-mercado-de-logistica-de-terceros","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.sisinternational.com\/es\/pericia\/investigacion-de-mercado-de-logistica-de-terceros\/","title":{"rendered":"Third Party Logistics Market Research | SIS International"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Investigaci\u00f3n de mercado de log\u00edstica de terceros<\/h1>\n
\"Investigaci\u00f3n<\/figure>\n
\n

\u00bfQu\u00e9 es la log\u00edstica de terceros?<\/h2>\n

La log\u00edstica de terceros (3PL) es un m\u00e9todo que utilizan las empresas en su proceso de env\u00edo para satisfacer la demanda de los consumidores. La empresa contrata a otra empresa para enviar sus productos a los clientes en este proceso. La log\u00edstica de terceros puede respaldar a\u00fan m\u00e1s parte o la totalidad del proceso de env\u00edo de una empresa. Los servicios cubiertos por 3PL incluyen:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Transporte<\/li>\n
  • almacenamiento<\/li>\n
  • Obtenci\u00f3n<\/li>\n
  • rastreo de env\u00edo<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Un proceso t\u00edpico de log\u00edstica de terceros implica los siguientes pasos:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. El proveedor 3PL obtiene los bienes de la empresa que lo contrat\u00f3. Este stock va a su almac\u00e9n. Un miembro del personal se encarga del env\u00edo en este punto.<\/li>\n
    2. El cliente realiza un pedido en el sitio de comercio electr\u00f3nico de la empresa. La empresa, a su vez, pasa este pedido a su proveedor 3PL. Este proceso puede ser autom\u00e1tico o manual.<\/li>\n
    3. Un miembro del equipo en el almac\u00e9n recibe una lista para recoger los art\u00edculos pedidos.<\/li>\n
    4. El proveedor imprime la etiqueta de env\u00edo. Tambi\u00e9n puede utilizar uno de sus socios transportistas.<\/li>\n
    5. El transportista recoge el paquete del centro 3PL y luego lo entrega al cliente.<\/li>\n
    6. El transportista coloca informaci\u00f3n de seguimiento en el sistema 3PL.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

      Third Party Logistics Market Research: How Leading Shippers Build Network Advantage<\/h1>\n

      Third Party Logistics Market Research has shifted from vendor benchmarking to network strategy. Shippers that treat 3PL selection as a procurement exercise miss the larger opportunity. The leaders treat it as a structural lever for margin, resilience, and speed-to-shelf.<\/p>\n

      The Fortune 500 supply chain organizations gaining ground share a pattern. They invest in primary research before they negotiate, not after. They map carrier capacity, automation maturity, and labor economics across regions before committing to multi-year contracts. The result is a 3PL footprint that compounds advantage rather than locking in average cost.<\/p>\n

      What Third Party Logistics Market Research Reveals About Network Design<\/h2>\n

      The most useful Third Party Logistics Market Research moves past published rate cards. It quantifies what providers will not disclose: warehouse throughput per labor hour, automation payback under real SKU velocity, and the true cost-to-serve across drayage, line-haul, and last-mile.<\/p>\n

      Three structural shifts reward shippers who study them carefully. Near-shoring into Mexico and Eastern Europe has redrawn corridor economics. Micro-fulfillment center feasibility has moved from pilot to portfolio decision in grocery, apparel, and health. Autonomous mobile robot (AMR) ROI now beats fixed conveyor in facilities under 400,000 square feet, which reshapes 3PL site selection.<\/p>\n

      SIS International Research engagements across freight forwarding and contract logistics indicate that shippers underestimate regional rate dispersion by 12 to 20 percent when relying on index data alone, particularly across Gulf, Southeast Asia, and intra-European lanes.<\/span> Primary freight rate benchmarking against actual tendered loads closes that gap.<\/p>\n

      Where Top Shippers Find Margin in 3PL Vendor Evaluation<\/h2>\n

      3PL vendor evaluation rewards specificity. The shippers winning on cost-to-serve build evaluation models on five inputs the RFP rarely captures cleanly: SKU velocity distribution, slotting optimization maturity, pick-pack-ship cost per order at peak, reverse logistics cost allocation, and TMS vendor selection compatibility with the shipper’s order management stack.<\/p>\n

      DHL Supply Chain, GXO, Maersk Contract Logistics, and Kuehne+Nagel each present distinct profiles on these dimensions. A provider strong in goods-to-person automation may underperform on cross-docking throughput. A regional operator with superior drayage cost optimization near the Port of Savannah may lack TMS depth for a global shipper. Generic scorecards flatten these differences. Primary research surfaces them.<\/p>\n

      The framework below structures the evaluation senior supply chain leaders find most defensible.<\/p>\n

      \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Evaluation Dimension<\/th>\nWhat to Measure<\/th>\nWhy It Matters<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
      Throughput Economics<\/td>\nPick-pack-ship cost at peak vs. baseline<\/td>\nReveals true peak-season exposure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Automation Maturity<\/td>\nAMR vs. fixed conveyor mix, goods-to-person vs. person-to-goods<\/td>\nPredicts 3-5 year unit cost trajectory<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Network Density<\/td>\nLane coverage, drayage proximity, intermodal split modeling<\/td>\nDetermines transit reliability and surge capacity<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Technology Stack<\/td>\nTMS, WMS, EDI, API depth<\/td>\nDrives integration cost and visibility<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Reverse Logistics<\/td>\nReturns processing cost per unit, disposition speed<\/td>\nOften 8-15% of total landed cost in DTC categories<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

      Source: SIS International Research<\/em><\/p>\n

      How Primary Research Quantifies Last-Mile Cost Modeling<\/h2>\n

      Last-mile cost modeling is the discipline most shippers treat as a black box. Published parcel rates from FedEx, UPS, and regional carriers like OnTrac or LSO obscure the variables that actually move landed cost: zone skipping economics, dimensional weight pricing exposure, residential surcharge accumulation, and final-mile density per route.<\/p>\n

      In structured expert interviews SIS International has conducted with senior logistics executives across consumer goods, industrial distribution, and e-commerce, the consistent finding is that shippers capture 6 to 11 percent in landed cost reduction when last-mile modeling is rebuilt from primary route-level data rather than carrier-supplied averages.<\/span> The leverage sits in route density, not rate negotiation.<\/p>\n

      Micro-fulfillment center feasibility studies sharpen this further. Placing inventory closer to demand changes the parcel zone distribution, which changes the carrier mix, which changes the contract structure. The decision sequence runs in that order. Reversed, it produces stranded capital.<\/p>\n

      What Warehouse Automation ROI Looks Like in 3PL Contracts<\/h2>\n

      Warehouse automation ROI has compressed. AMR fleets from Locus Robotics, 6 River Systems, and Geek+ now reach payback inside 24 to 36 months in facilities with stable SKU velocity. Goods-to-person systems from AutoStore and Exotec extend payback but raise throughput ceilings meaningfully.<\/p>\n

      The strategic question for shippers is not whether their 3PL has automated. It is whether the contract structure captures the productivity gain or leaves it with the provider. Variable-rate contracts indexed to units handled tend to share the gain. Fixed-rate per-square-foot contracts tend to keep it with the 3PL. Primary research on contract structure across a peer set reveals which model the market is moving toward in each vertical.<\/p>\n

      Where Near-Shoring Logistics Feasibility Creates Asymmetric Upside<\/h2>\n

      Near-shoring logistics feasibility studies have moved from manufacturing footprint to 3PL footprint. Monterrey, Saltillo, and Baj\u00edo have absorbed capacity that used to anchor in coastal China. The 3PL networks following that capacity, including DSV, CEVA, and Ryder, have built bonded warehouse, cross-border drayage, and IMMEX-compliant inventory handling at a pace that outruns most shippers’ visibility.<\/p>\n

      SIS International’s market assessments across freight and contract logistics, including engagements spanning the Gulf, North America, and Southeast Asia, show that shippers running cross-border corridor analysis ahead of contract renewal capture provider concessions averaging 4 to 9 percent on multi-year commitments.<\/span> The window narrows once capacity tightens.<\/p>\n

      Cold chain integrity audits, port congestion impact modeling, and 3PL vendor evaluation against named alternatives, conducted through B2B expert interviews and competitive intelligence rather than secondary data alone, define the difference between a defensible 3PL strategy and a renegotiated one.<\/p>\n

      Building the Decision-Grade Research Foundation<\/h2>\n

      Decision-grade Third Party Logistics Market Research combines four inputs: B2B expert interviews with logistics directors at peer shippers, competitive intelligence on 3PL provider capacity and pricing, freight rate benchmarking against actual tendered volumes, and market entry assessments for new corridors. Secondary data alone produces averages. Primary research produces decisions.<\/p>\n

      The shippers compounding advantage are the ones treating their 3PL network as a strategic asset that warrants the same research rigor as a market entry or acquisition. The returns show up in landed cost, service reliability, and the capacity to absorb demand shocks without renegotiating mid-contract.<\/p>\n

      Key Questions<\/h2>\n

      Q: What does Third Party Logistics Market Research actually deliver to a Fortune 500 shipper?<\/strong>
      \nA: It delivers primary, decision-grade evidence on 3PL capacity, pricing, automation maturity, and network density that secondary data and RFP responses cannot surface. The output is a defensible network strategy, not a vendor scorecard.<\/p>\n

      Q: How is 3PL vendor evaluation different from procurement benchmarking?<\/strong>
      \nA: Procurement benchmarking compares prices against indexes. 3PL vendor evaluation compares operating economics, automation trajectory, technology depth, and network density across named providers using primary interviews and tendered-load data.<\/p>\n

      Q: When should a shipper commission primary 3PL research?<\/strong>
      \nA: Before contract renewal, before near-shoring decisions, and before automation investment. The leverage compounds when research precedes commitment, not when it validates one already made.<\/p>\n

      Q: What insider metrics matter most in last-mile cost modeling?<\/strong>
      \nA: Route density, dimensional weight exposure, zone skipping economics, and residential surcharge accumulation. These four variables explain most of the landed-cost variance carriers will not disclose in published rates.<\/p>\n

      Q: How does SIS International approach 3PL market research?<\/strong>
      \nA: Through B2B expert interviews, competitive intelligence, freight rate benchmarking against tendered volumes, and corridor-level market entry assessments across global lanes.<\/p>\n

      Acerca de SIS Internacional<\/h2>\n

      SIS Internacional<\/a> ofrece investigaci\u00f3n cuantitativa, cualitativa y estrat\u00e9gica. Proporcionamos datos, herramientas, estrategias, informes y conocimientos para la toma de decisiones. Tambi\u00e9n realizamos entrevistas, encuestas, grupos focales y otros m\u00e9todos y enfoques de investigaci\u00f3n de mercado. P\u00f3ngase en contacto con nosotros<\/a> para su pr\u00f3ximo proyecto de Investigaci\u00f3n de Mercado.<\/p>\n

      \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n

      \n

      Related SIS Resources<\/h3>\n