Choosing the right intermodal provider for your business needs is a nuanced decision in today's freight world complete with capacity swings, tariff volatility and cross-border complexity. Many shippers assume that owning equipment equals superiority - buying into a persistent logistics myth that asset-based providers offer inherently better reliability, cost or control.
The thinking goes: "If they own the containers, they must be more committed. They must have better control. They must be the safer choice." But flexibility, resilience, and visibility are everything - and asset ownership doesn't automatically deliver those outcomes.
This article aims to be the definitive resource for shippers evaluating intermodal providers. We'll cover:
I've written extensively about this topic on my LinkedIn and here, on the InTek Logistics website. And I've noticed something: most content about IMCs pushes hard toward asset providers. That's great for some shippers.
But it's not the full picture, and it's causing many shippers to miss out on capacity, savings, and service options they don't even know exist. By reading this article, you'll have the knowledge to make an informed decision —one that fits your network, your lanes, and your business objectives.
In truckload, "asset vs. non-asset" is straightforward:
Simple. Clean. Easy to understand.
Intermodal is completely different.
Here's the key insight most shippers miss: No single company owns all the assets in an intermodal move.
Not J.B. Hunt. Not Hub Group. Not Schneider. Not Swift. Not STG. Not the class 1 railroads. Not anyone.
An intermodal shipment involves:
The tracks, trains, locomotives, and intermodal ramps are owned 100% by the Class I railroads.
No IMC, asset or non-asset, owns any of that infrastructure.
So when we talk about "asset" vs. "non-asset" in intermodal, we're really talking about who owns the containers and drayage capacity. That's it.
The 53' domestic intermodal market includes several types of providers:
1. Bi-Modal IMCs (Asset-Based)
These providers own containers, chassis, and the majority of their drayage capacity (tractors and drivers). J.B. Hunt is the dominant example, with approximately 116,000 containers, which is the largest fleet in North America.
Other bi-modal providers include Hub Group (approximately 50,000 containers), Schneider, and Knight-Swift.
Key characteristics:
2. Asset-Lite IMCs
These providers own some containers and drayage capacity but also utilize railroad-owned equipment when demand exceeds their owned capacity. Schneider operates in this model for portions of their business.
3. Non-Asset IMCs
These providers do not own containers or drayage assets. Instead, they have contractual relationships with all North American Class 1 railroads to utilize railroad-owned equipment.
Key characteristics:
4. Rail Retailers
Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) sell directly to some shippers. While their service is solid, many shippers find the direct railroad model lacks the customer service and operational support of an IMC.
5. Freight Brokers
Brokers that don't purchase rail service directly from railroads are not true IMCs. They work through IMCs to arrange intermodal capacity. This adds a layer between the shipper and the railroad, often without the intermodal expertise that dedicated IMCs provide.
Understanding who owns what helps clarify the market:
| Owner | Approximate Containers | % of Market |
|---|---|---|
| J.B. Hunt | ~116,000 | Largest single owner |
| Hub Group | ~50,000 | Second largest |
| Schneider | ~27,700 | Third largest |
| Class 1 Railroads (combined) | ~88,000+ | UP, NS, CSX own containers; BNSF does not |
| Other Asset IMCs | Varies | STG, Knight-Swift, others |
Or for more colorful breakdowns of container ownership:
Key insight: Approximately 33% of containers are publicly owned (by railroads) and available to non-asset IMCs. This is substantial capacity that many shippers don't even know exists.
Let's be clear: asset-based IMCs provide tremendous value to the right shippers. Here's where they excel.
1. Network Density on Core Lanes
Asset IMCs like J.B. Hunt have built their networks around high-volume, high-density lanes. On these core corridors - LA to Chicago, LA to Dallas, Chicago to the Northeast - they achieve excellent equipment utilization and can offer competitive pricing.
If your freight flows align with their network sweet spots, asset providers can be hard to beat when it comes to price.
2. Economies of Scale
J.B. Hunt handles over 2 million intermodal loads annually. That scale creates purchasing power with railroads, chassis pools, and drayage providers. On lanes where they have density, they can achieve economies that smaller providers cannot match.
3. Integrated Operations
Because bi-modals own their drayage capacity, they have more direct control over the first and last mile. When everything works within their system, handoffs can be seamless.
4. Brand Recognition and Stability
J.B. Hunt, Hub Group, and Schneider are publicly traded companies with decades of intermodal experience. For procurement teams, these are "safe" choices that require less explanation to leadership.
5. Truckload Balance Opportunities
Asset providers with significant truckload operations (like J.B. Hunt, Schneider, and Knight-Swift) can sometimes offer unconventional intermodal lanes by balancing intermodal with their truckload network.
Asset-based IMCs tend to work best when:
Now let's address what I believe is the most misunderstood segment of the intermodal market.
This is the most damaging myth in intermodal. Let me explain why it's wrong.
A true non-asset IMC has direct, contractual relationships with the Class 1 railroads. The railroads don't sell intermodal service directly to most shippers, so they sell wholesale to IMCs who then market, sell, and operate the service.
Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, and CSX own containers that they market through non-asset IMCs. These IMCs are not brokering someone else's capacity. They are the authorized sales, marketing, and operations channel for railroad-owned equipment.
The non-asset IMC contractual commitment is a binding three-way agreement between the IMC, shipper, and railroad. This provides:
A non-asset IMC has the full faith and backing of the railroad's resources.
A freight broker working through an IMC does not have this relationship.
1. Access to All Class 1 Railroads
Non-asset IMCs have relationships with UP, NS, CSX, BNSF, CN, and CPKC. This means they can serve any intermodal lane in North America, not just the lanes that fit one railroad's network.
Asset providers typically align with specific railroads. J.B. Hunt, for example, partners primarily with BNSF in the West and Norfolk Southern in the East (at least for now). If a lane doesn't fit their railroad partnerships, they may not be competitive or may not offer it at all.
2. Flexibility to Shift Between Railroads
When one railroad experiences service disruptions - a derailment, terminal congestion, weather impacts - a non-asset IMC can shift freight to an alternative railroad.
Example: If UP has a derailment affecting service from LA to Chicago, a non-asset IMC can move freight via BNSF using railroad-owned or private containers. An asset provider locked into UP has no alternative but to wait.
This flexibility is invaluable in a market where rail service disruptions are inevitable.
3. Network-Wide Coverage
Asset IMCs optimize their networks around their highest-volume lanes. Lanes that don't generate sufficient density for their model may receive secondary attention or may not be offered at all.
Non-asset IMCs can profitably serve lanes across the entire North American intermodal network, including:
4. Superior Customer Service (Documented)
This isn't opinion - it's documented in industry surveys.
The Journal of Commerce (JOC) consistently surveys the intermodal market, asking shippers to rank their IMCs. Time and again, mid-market non-asset IMCs lead the pack, earning the highest Net Promoter Scores (NPS).
In the JOC's Intermodal Service Scorecard:
One shipper wrote: "Our IMC communicates well and is a great long-term partner, so while their rates may be a little higher, their service is excellent."
5. Technology Investment
Because non-asset IMCs don't have capital tied up in containers, trucks, and chassis, they often invest more heavily in technology:
This technology investment can provide visibility and control that matches or exceeds what asset providers offer.
6. Ability to Augment with Truckload
When a lane doesn't fit intermodal or service requires a faster option, non-asset IMCs can seamlessly provide truckload alternatives. This "one-stop shop" model means shippers don't need separate relationships for intermodal and truckload.
7. No Network Rationalization Pressure
Asset providers are publicly traded companies with quarterly earnings pressure. During and after capacity-constrained markets, they often rationalize their networks focusing on high-yield lanes and deprioritizing lower-margin business.
Non-asset IMCs don't face the same pressure to optimize for container turns and yield management. They can maintain service on a broader range of lanes without the same financial dynamics pushing them to concentrate only on their best-performing corridors.
Non-asset IMCs tend to work best when:
Why the myth persists: Shippers assume owning containers, chassis, and rail assets lowers cost by cutting out middlemen.
Reality: Cost depends far more on network density, lane optimization, and asset utilization than ownership.
A non-asset IMC can selectively tap the best railroad or dray partner for a given lane, optimizing cost and service. When one railroad is tight or a dray provider is disrupted, non-asset providers can shift to alternate partners, thus avoiding uplift or delay.
Asset providers may have lower costs on their core network lanes, but they may be more expensive on lanes where they lack density or railroad alignment.
Shipper question to ask: "If my lane's primary railroad experiences disruption, what backup capacity do you have, and at what cost?"
Why the myth persists: "Non-asset = broker" sounds like low accountability.
Reality: The top non-asset IMCs function as orchestration engines. They consolidate performance data, monitor service SLAs, and enforce accountability across partners.
A well-run non-asset IMC maintains scorecards for all dray providers and rail segments, triggers escalation workflows, and holds partners to minimum reliability thresholds.
When an origin dray partner misses a terminal cut, a good non-asset IMC auto-reassigns a backup and adjusts downstream rail bookings, not waiting for manual escalation. That agility ensures freight doesn't stay stuck.
Shipper question to ask: "Show me your partner performance metrics and escalation process when a leg underperforms."
Why the myth persists: People think "we own the container = we see everything."
Reality: Owning assets doesn't guarantee integrated tracking. Many asset providers still depend on disparate legacy systems.
A strong non-asset IMC invests in a neutral, aggregated visibility platform that draws from rail, dray, GPS, sensor, and ELD feeds. The result: a single, synchronized "source of truth" for shipment status, regardless of which partner moves it.
Your container's live location might draw from UP's rail GPS, your dray's ELD, and door-open sensor alerts—all collated in one interface. No "you ask carrier A, I ask carrier B" siloed view.
Shipper question to ask: "Can I see my shipment across all modes and carriers in one dashboard?"
Why the myth persists: Desk brokers and load-matchers give non-asset models a bad reputation.
Reality: A modern non-asset IMC is a strategic systems integrator. They combine supply chain design, rate engineering, compliance management, cross-dock infrastructure, and operational oversight into a cohesive solution.
They're not just moving boxes - they're designing lane networks, mitigating tariff exposure, and optimizing visibility across complex supply chains.
Competitive differentiation includes:
Shipper question to ask: "How do you architect networks beyond single lanes to create economies of scale and risk mitigation?"
Why the myth persists: Asset control feels more stable - "if you own it, you control it."
Reality: Assets don't guarantee flexibility. When your own containers or chassis are tied up elsewhere, they're not available for your load. Asset providers can find themselves short on equipment in exactly the markets where you need it.
Non-asset IMCs maintain access to diverse equipment pools and can shift capacity preemptively when markets tighten.
Example: During chassis shortages in Southern California, many asset providers scrambled to source external equipment and passed cost increases to shippers. Non-asset IMCs with broader access were able to reroute or rebalance loads without service interruption.
Shipper question to ask: "In peak seasons, how do you maintain capacity continuity without equipment lock-in?"
Here's what we've found after working with hundreds of shippers:
Large shippers typically go with a "best of breed" solution diversifying across both asset and non-asset IMCs to give diversify away risk on one railroad, to account for different intermodal freight lanes, and to align service requirements of their customers.
Smaller to mid-sized shippers often choose non-asset IMCs for the simplicity of having one provider for all their intermodal needs.
1. Leverage on Pricing
On lanes where both UP and BNSF (or NS and CSX) operate, shippers gain leverage when they can move freight via multiple railroads. Non-asset IMCs provide that flexibility. Using only an asset provider locked into specific railroads limits your negotiating position.
2. Service Redundancy
When one provider or railroad has service issues, having an alternative keeps freight moving. A shipper using only J.B. Hunt has no backup if BNSF or NS experiences problems. Adding a non-asset IMC creates redundancy.
3. Lane-Specific Optimization
Different providers excel on different lanes. An asset provider might be the best option for LA to Chicago. A non-asset IMC might be better for a secondary lane. Using both lets you optimize lane by lane.
4. Customer Service Balance
Large asset providers may provide excellent service to their largest customers but struggle to deliver the same attention to mid-market shippers. Adding a non-asset IMC ensures you have a provider where your business matters.
Large Shippers (1,000+ intermodal loads/month)
Mid-Market Shippers (100-1,000 loads/month)
Smaller Shippers (<100 loads/month)
Regardless of the model, here's how to assess any intermodal provider:
| Area | What to Ask / Look For |
|---|---|
| Network Access | Which Class 1 railroads do they work with? Can they serve all your lanes? |
| Service Oversight | What are their escalation workflows? Do they maintain partner scorecards? What's the backup plan when something goes wrong? |
| Visibility | Is there a unified dashboard? API/EDI integration available? Real-time alerts? |
| Customer Service | What's their responsiveness? Who's your day-to-day contact? What's their NPS score? |
| Flexibility / Scalability | Can they scale up/down without asset constraints? Can they shift between railroads? |
| Reliability | Historical KPIs? On-time delivery percentage? Disruption recovery examples? |
| Cost Transparency | Clear breakdowns (linehaul, dray, accessorials)? Rules for contingencies? Bundled pricing options? |
| Technology | Tracking capabilities? Data analytics? TMS integration? |
| References | Will they provide references from similar shippers? (A top IMC will share them quickly.) |
For Asset Providers:
For Non-Asset Providers:
For Both:
The Journal of Commerce surveys consistently reveal important patterns:
This doesn't mean asset providers are bad. J.B. Hunt consistently receives top marks for overall performance and scale.
But the data shows that non-asset providers deliver exceptional value that many shippers overlook.
After nearly two decades helping shippers navigate intermodal, here's what I've learned:
The critical differentiator in intermodal services is not asset ownership - instead it's the ability to provide high-quality service.
A non-asset IMC with excellent communication, strong railroad relationships, robust technology, and responsive customer service will outperform an asset provider with poor execution every time.
Conversely, a well-run asset provider on their core network lanes will outperform a poorly managed non-asset IMC.
The model matters less than the execution.
If you're a shipper evaluating intermodal providers:
The best intermodal strategy is the one that fits your business, not the one that fits a marketing narrative.
I started this article by noting that most content about IMCs pushes toward asset providers. That's understandable: J.B. Hunt, Hub Group, Schneider, Swift and STG have significant marketing budgets and brand recognition.
But that narrative causes shippers to miss opportunities.
Non-asset IMCs offer:
If you're currently using only asset providers, you may be leaving value on the table. If you've never considered a non-asset IMC because you assumed they were "just brokers," it's time to revisit that assumption.
The right intermodal strategy isn't about choosing sides. It's about finding the providers (asset, non-asset, or both) who deliver the outcomes your business needs. A well-engineered non-asset partner can give you the agility of a broker with the power of an integrated operator. They deserve a seat at the table.
If you're curious whether a non-asset IMC could improve your intermodal program - or how a diversified approach might strengthen your network - InTek Intermodal Logistics can help. Simply fill in our brief form and we'll be in touch before you know it to discuss your freight needs.
We've been helping shippers add intermodal capacity or transition truckload lanes to intermodal since 2007. With direct relationships with all North American Class 1 railroads and a focus on service that has earned us consistently high marks in JOC surveys, we offer the flexibility, visibility, and personalized attention that distinguishes the best non-asset providers.
Related Articles: