The Comparison Everyone Gets Wrong

Ask a shipper to compare intermodal and truckload, and you'll usually get one of two answers:

"Intermodal is cheaper but slower."

"Truckload is faster but more expensive."

Both statements are generally true. Neither is particularly useful.

The real question isn't which mode is "better." It's which mode delivers the most total value for a specific lane, given your freight characteristics, service requirements, and business constraints. That comparison is harder than it looks. And most shippers get it wrong because they're not comparing apples to apples.

They compare a truckload linehaul rate to an intermodal linehaul rate and call it a day. But linehaul is only part of the story. The costs that don't show up on the rate sheet include: accessorials, inventory carrying costs, service failure expenses, and operational overhead. And those often determine which mode actually wins.

We recently published two companion pieces: How to Know Which of Your Lanes Are a Perfect Fit for Intermodal and When Intermodal Is the Wrong Choice — And What to Use Instead. Together, they help shippers identify where intermodal fits and where it doesn't.

This article goes deeper. It's for the lanes where both modes could work and where the decision isn't obvious - requiring deeper analysis. By the end, you'll have a framework for comparing intermodal and truckload fairly, accounting for all the costs and trade-offs that matter.

Part 1: Why Most Comparisons Fail

The Linehaul Rate Trap

Here's how the conversation usually goes:

A shipper gets a truckload spot quote: $2,800 for a lane from Los Angeles to Dallas.

They get an intermodal quote: $2,100 for the same lane.

"Intermodal is $700 cheaper. Easy decision."

Except it's not that simple. For one, not all IMCs (intermodal providers) quote all-in spot rates, while that truckload rate does typically include everything. The truck picks up at your dock, drives to the destination, and delivers. One invoice. Done.

That intermodal rate might be linehaul only. Or it might include some accessorials, but not others. Drayage on both ends might be quoted separately. Fuel surcharges might be calculated differently. And if something goes wrong with a missed cut-time, terminal congestion, or detention, then additional charges appear.

Comparing a truckload all-in rate to an intermodal linehaul rate isn't apples to apples. It's apples to apple slices.

The Hidden Costs on Both Sides

Here's what gets missed:

On the intermodal side:

• Origin and destination drayage (if quoted separately)
• Fuel surcharges (calculated differently than truckload)
• Chassis usage fees
• Terminal fees and lift charges
• Detention and demurrage if containers aren't picked up or returned on time
• Storage charges if freight sits at a terminal
• Per diem on equipment

On the truckload side:

• Detention at shipper or receiver
• Layover charges
• TONU (truck ordered, not used) fees
• Accessorial charges for lumper services, pallet exchange, etc.
• Driver assist fees
• Fuel surcharge variability

Quite often both truckload and intermodal are quoted as all-in rates for spot, but it's critical to ask the question because both modes could have costs beyond linehaul.

The difference is that truckload accessorials are often more predictable (or more commonly quoted all-in), while intermodal accessorials can surprise shippers who aren't managing them actively and / or not familiar with intermodal shipping.

The Service Cost No One Calculates

Beyond direct freight costs, there's a category most shippers ignore entirely: the cost of service differences.

Intermodal typically adds 1-2 days of transit versus truckload. What does that extra time cost you?

• Inventory carrying cost: If you need to hold more safety stock to buffer longer transit times, that's real money tied up in inventory.
• Opportunity cost: If slower delivery means you can't respond to demand spikes as quickly, that's potential lost sales.
• Customer impact: If your customer values speed and you're adding days, what's the relationship cost?

These costs are harder to quantify, but they're not zero. A fair comparison has to at least acknowledge them.

Part 2: Building a True Total Cost Comparison

Step 1: Define the Lane Clearly

A fair comparison starts with specifics:

• Origin: Exact pickup location, not just the city
• Destination: Exact delivery location
• Distance: Door-to-door miles
• Frequency: How often you ship this lane
• Volume: How many loads per week/month
• Freight characteristics: Weight, dimensions, commodity type

Why this matters: Intermodal economics vary significantly by lane. A 1,200-mile lane between two major ramps performs very differently than a 1,200-mile lane where one end is 150 miles from the nearest terminal. 

Step 2: Get Comparable Quotes

For truckload, request:

• All-in door-to-door rate
• Fuel surcharge structure
• Accessorial schedule (detention, layover, etc.)
• Transit time commitment

For intermodal, request:

• Door-to-door rate (including drayage on both ends)
• Or, if quoted separately: linehaul + origin dray + destination dray
• Fuel surcharge structure
• Accessorial schedule (detention, demurrage, storage, chassis, per diem)
• Transit time (realistic, not best-case)

The key is getting door-to-door pricing on both modes. If your intermodal provider only quotes linehaul, ask for the full landed cost including drayage.

Step 3: Calculate Landed Cost, Not Linehaul

Landed cost = Linehaul + Fuel surcharge + Drayage (if applicable) + Expected accessorials + Service-related costs

Let's work through an example.

Lane: Chicago to Los Angeles, 2,025 miles Frequency: 20 loads per month

Truckload quote:

• Linehaul: $2,625
• Fuel surcharge: $875 (25%)
• Expected detention (average): $50 per load
• Total landed cost: $3,500

Intermodal quote:

• Linehaul (rail): $625
• Fuel surcharge: $425 (25%)
• Origin dray (LA area): $350
• Destination dray (Chicago area): $300
• Expected accessorials (average): $75 per load
• Total landed cost: $1,700

Difference: $1,800 per load in favor of intermodal

At 20 loads per month, that's $36,000 in monthly savings, or $432,000annually.

Even if intermodal accessorials ran higher than expected ... say, $150 per load instead of $75 ... the savings would still be $1,725 per load.

That's a lane where intermodal wins decisively.

Step 4: Factor in Service Differences

Now add the service dimension.

The Chicago to LA has very similar transits, but in cases where Truckload transit: 3-4 days Intermodal transit: 5-6 days

Does that 2-day difference matter for this freight?

If you're shipping non-perishable consumer goods to a distribution center that carries weeks of inventory, probably not. The DC doesn't care if freight arrives Tuesday or Thursday as long as it's predictable.

If you're shipping to a retailer with tight replenishment windows and thin inventory buffers, those 2 days might create stockout risk.

Quantify it if you can:

• What's your inventory carrying cost per day for this product?
• What's the cost of a stockout if transit variability causes one?
• What's your customer's tolerance for longer lead times?

For many shippers, the service trade-off is acceptable. For some, it's a deal-breaker. Know which category you're in before deciding.

Step 5: Assess Risk and Variability

Both modes have service variability. Neither delivers every load perfectly on time.

Truckload variability sources:

• Driver availability
• Traffic and weather
• Truck breakdowns
• Detention at prior stops

Intermodal variability sources:

• Terminal congestion
• Train delays or service disruptions
• Drayage carrier availability
• Weather affecting rail operations
• Equipment positioning

The question isn't which mode is more variable, but instead the question is which mode's variability you can manage better in your operation.

Some shippers find intermodal variability harder to manage because the handoffs create more points where communication can break down. Others find truckload variability harder because a truck breakdown can leave freight stranded with fewer recovery options.

Your IMCs ability to provide visibility, manage exceptions, and communicate proactively matters as much as the mode itself.

Part 3: The Current Market Context

What the Freight Recession Means for This Comparison

Since July 2022, truckload has been in a freight recession. Spot rates dropped. Contract rates followed. Capacity became abundant.

Some shippers looked at the soft truckload market and asked, "Why bother with intermodal when truck is so cheap?"

Fair question. Here's the answer.

Even at the bottom of the freight cycle, truckload hasn't become dramatically cheaper than intermodal on long-haul lanes. The gap narrowed, but it didn't close.

Intermodal still offers a 10-15% cost advantage on most lanes over 700 miles. That advantage compressed during the deepest part of the downturn, but it never disappeared.

And here's what history tells us: freight markets are cyclical. The same shippers who abandoned intermodal when truckload got cheap in 2019 scrambled to get back on rail when capacity tightened in 2020-2021 and often then put themselves in a position of finding equipment unavailable and rates higher than if they'd maintained their intermodal programs.

The Statistical Relationship Between Modes

Here's something we've tracked for years: the statistical correlation between truckload spot rates and intermodal spot rates is extremely tight. The r-value sits around 0.90.

What does that mean in practice?

When truckload moves, intermodal eventually follows - and vice versa. But truckload moves faster because truck transactions happen in real-time on spot boards, while intermodal pricing adjusts more gradually.

This creates a pattern:

• When truckload spikes quickly (tight capacity, demand surge), intermodal lags. Shippers who already have intermodal programs capture significant savings during these windows.
• When truckload drops quickly (soft market), intermodal also drops, but the gap between them compresses.

The key insight: Truckload spot rates signal a turn. Intermodal determines whether that turn has real momentum.

If truckload spikes but intermodal doesn't follow, the spike is usually temporary because it is driven by weather, a holiday, or a short-term demand blip. If intermodal follows truckload up, the market is genuinely tightening.

So, in a freight market downturn, truckload bounces along the bottom without intermodal signaling any sustained recovery. That tells us the market remains soft and any truckload rate pops have been short-lived.

What This Means for Your Decision

If you're comparing modes today:

1. Don't assume today's truckload rates are permanent. They're cyclical. Building a strategy around bottom-of-market truck rates is risky.
2. Intermodal's advantage persists even in soft markets. The 10-15% savings on long-haul lanes is durable across cycles (and grows beyond that at times).
3. Shippers with established intermodal programs are better positioned. When capacity tightens, they have rail options. Shippers who abandoned intermodal will compete for limited capacity at higher rates.
4. Now is actually a good time to build intermodal into your network. Equipment is available. Service is solid. You can test lanes and optimize before the market turns.

Part 4: Beyond Cost — The Full Comparison Framework

Price matters. But it's not the only thing that matters.

Here's a complete framework for comparing intermodal and truckload:

Cost Factors

Winner on cost: Intermodal, on lanes over 700 miles with good ramp access.

Service Factors

Winner on service: Truckload, when speed and delivery precision are critical.

Capacity Factors

Winner on capacity: Intermodal, for shippers who value consistency across market cycles.

Operational Factors

Winner on operations: Truckload is simpler. Intermodal requires more planning but rewards it with savings.

Strategic Factors

Winner on strategy: Intermodal, for shippers with sustainability goals or desire for modal diversification.

Part 5: Decision Framework — When Each Mode Wins

Intermodal Wins When:

1. Distance favors rail: Lanes over 700 miles (ideally 1,000+) where rail linehaul delivers maximum value.
2. Ramp access is good: Both origin and destination are within reasonable dray distance of terminals.
3. Transit flexibility exists: You can accept 1-2 extra days without operational pain.
4. Volume is consistent: Predictable, recurring freight lets you optimize equipment and pricing.
5. Total cost matters most: When the CFO is measuring landed cost, not just freight rate.
6. Sustainability is a priority: When emissions reduction has organizational or customer value.
7. You want capacity resilience: Diversifying away from truckload-only exposure.

Truckload Wins When:

1. Speed is critical: Time-sensitive freight where 1-2 days makes a material difference.
2. Delivery windows are tight: When customers require precise appointment times with penalties for misses.
3. Distance is short: Lanes under 500 miles where drayage costs erode intermodal's advantage.
4. Ramp access is poor: When long drays on either end make intermodal uneconomical.
5. Volume is sporadic: Unpredictable freight that doesn't support committed intermodal programs.
6. Operational simplicity is valued: When the planning overhead of intermodal isn't worth the savings.
7. The freight doesn't fit: Oversized, overweight, fragile, or specialty freight that isn't suited for containers.

The Lanes Where It's Close

Some lanes genuinely could go either way. These are typically:

• 600-800 mile lanes where distance is borderline and have a higher percentage of dray miles in the total miles for the freight lane
• Lanes where one end has marginal ramp access
• Freight where transit flexibility is moderate (not critical, but not unlimited)
• Shippers whose operational processes could accommodate intermodal but haven't been set up for it

For these lanes, the comparison framework above becomes essential. Run the full landed cost calculation. Quantify the service trade-offs. Make the decision based on data, not assumptions.

Part 6: Common Mistakes in Mode Comparison

Mistake 1: Comparing Linehaul to Linehaul

We've covered this, but it's worth repeating. Linehaul-to-linehaul comparisons are meaningless. Always compare total landed cost, door to door.

Mistake 2: Ignoring Accessorial Reality

Some shippers compare best-case intermodal (no accessorials) to realistic truckload (some detention expected). That's not fair.

Build realistic accessorial assumptions into both modes. If your facilities typically hold trucks for 3 hours, include detention in your truckload cost. If your intermodal provider tells you to expect occasional demurrage, include that in your intermodal cost.

Another option to reduce accessorial variability: work with an IMC that includes many accessorial assumptions in their pricing model. These providers either charge fewer accessorials than others or manage shipments more closely to reduce or eliminate accessorial charges altogether.

And when comparing rates between intermodal providers, make sure you're making an apples-to-apples comparison here too. One provider's "lower rate" might come with accessorials that another provider includes in their base price.

Mistake 3: Using Spot Rates for Strategic Decisions

Spot rates are snapshots. They tell you what freight costs today, not what it will cost over your planning horizon.

Contract or committed rates are better for strategic mode decisions. They reflect what you'll actually pay over time, not what you'd pay if you booked one load today.

Mistake 4: Forgetting the Cycle

The shipper who switches entirely to truckload because "truck is cheap right now" is making a bet that truck will stay cheap. History says it won't.

Build your mode strategy for the cycle, not the moment. That usually means maintaining intermodal capability even when truckload rates are soft, so you're positioned when the market turns.

Mistake 5: Treating All Lanes the Same

Some shippers pick a mode and apply it universally. "We're a truckload shipper." Or, "We use intermodal whenever possible."

The right answer is lane-specific. Some lanes clearly favor intermodal. Some clearly favor truckload. Some are close calls. Treating all lanes the same leaves money on the table.

Mistake 6: Ignoring Your Own Operations

The theoretical best mode doesn't matter if your operations can't execute it.

If your facilities can't adjust shipping schedules to meet intermodal cut-times, intermodal won't work, regardless of the cost savings. If your customers won't accept longer transit times, intermodal won't work.

The best mode is the one that fits your operational reality, not just your spreadsheet.

Part 7: A Practical Comparison Checklist

Use this checklist when evaluating intermodal vs. truckload on a specific lane:

Lane Characteristics:

Cost Comparison:

Service Comparison:

Operational Fit:

Strategic Factors:

Decision:

Please fill out the following if you'd like InTek Intermodal to run our optimizer to identify potential intermodal freight lanes in you supply chain ... 

Intermodal Optimizer

Making the Right Call

The intermodal vs. truckload decision isn't about which mode is universally "better." It's about which mode delivers better outcomes for specific lanes, given your specific requirements.

On long-haul lanes with good ramp access and transit flexibility, intermodal almost always wins on cost. The 10-15% savings is real and durable across market cycles.

On short-haul lanes, time-sensitive freight, or situations where operational simplicity matters most, truckload wins.

The lanes in between require analysis. Use the framework in this article to compare total landed cost, service trade-offs, capacity considerations, and strategic factors. Make decisions based on data, not assumptions or habit.

And remember: freight markets are cyclical.

The mode strategy you build should work across the cycle, not just in today's market conditions. Shippers who maintain intermodal capability during soft truck markets are better positioned when capacity tightens - and it always does eventually.

The Three-Article Takeaway

If you've read all three articles in this series, here's what you now know:

1. How to Know Which Lanes Are a Perfect Fit for Intermodal: The criteria that make a lane ideal for intermodal: distance, ramp access, transit flexibility, volume consistency, and freight characteristics.
2. When Intermodal Is the Wrong Choice: The 10 situations where truckload or other modes beat intermodal, and why knowing when to say no matters.
3. Intermodal vs. Truckload: A True Apples-to-Apples Comparison: How to fairly compare the modes on lanes where both could work, accounting for all the costs most shippers miss.

Together, these give you a complete framework for making smart mode decisions. Where intermodal fits, use it and capture the savings. Where it doesn't fit, use truckload without hesitation. Where it's close, do the analysis and decide based on your specific situation.

That's how you build a freight strategy that optimizes cost, service, and resilience ... not just for today's market, but across the cycle.

Need Help With the Comparison?

At InTek Logistics, we help shippers evaluate their lanes and make informed mode decisions. That includes telling you when intermodal isn't the right answer.

If you want a lane-by-lane analysis comparing intermodal and truckload on your network, we can help. We'll give you the landed cost comparison, the service trade-off assessment, and a straight recommendation — even if that recommendation is "stick with truck."

Fill in our quick form for a lane analysis or visit our home page to learn more.

Related Articles:

• • How to Know Which of Your Lanes Are a Perfect Fit for Intermodal
  • When Intermodal Is the Wrong Choice — And What to Use Instead
  • Asset vs Non-Asset Intermodal Freight Providers: A Detailed Comparison

For more about InTek Logistics - and the industry in general, go to our Resources or visit the highlighted pages below.

• Intermodal
• Truckload
• Transloading Services
• Outsourced Managed Transportation Service Solutions