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.
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.
Here's what gets missed:
On the intermodal side:
On the truckload side:
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.
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?
These costs are harder to quantify, but they're not zero. A fair comparison has to at least acknowledge them.
A fair comparison starts with specifics:
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.
For truckload, request:
For intermodal, request:
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.
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:
Intermodal quote:
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.
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:
For many shippers, the service trade-off is acceptable. For some, it's a deal-breaker. Know which category you're in before deciding.
Both modes have service variability. Neither delivers every load perfectly on time.
Truckload variability sources:
Intermodal variability sources:
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.
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.
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:
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.
If you're comparing modes today:
Price matters. But it's not the only thing that matters.
Here's a complete framework for comparing intermodal and truckload:
| Factor | Truckload | Intermodal |
|---|---|---|
| Linehaul rate | Higher | Lower (typically 10-15% less) |
| Fuel surcharge | Included or clearly defined | May be calculated differently |
| Accessorial exposure | Generally predictable | Higher variability potential |
| Cost predictability | High (all-in pricing common) | Moderate (requires active management) |
Winner on cost: Intermodal, on lanes over 700 miles with good ramp access.
| Factor | Truckload | Intermodal |
|---|---|---|
| Transit time | Faster (direct routing) | 1-2 days longer |
| Transit consistency | Moderate variability | Moderate variability (different sources) |
| Delivery precision | Can hit tight windows | Better for delivery windows than exact times |
| Flexibility/expedite | Can adjust mid-route | Limited once on rail |
Winner on service: Truckload, when speed and delivery precision are critical.
| Factor | Truckload | Intermodal |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity availability | Abundant in soft markets, tight in strong markets | More stable across cycles |
| Capacity diversity | Dependent on driver market | Access to distinct rail/container pool |
| Peak season reliability | Can tighten dramatically | Generally more consistent |
| Contracted capacity protection | Varies by carrier relationship | Strong with committed IMC programs |
Winner on capacity: Intermodal, for shippers who value consistency across market cycles.
| Factor | Truckload | Intermodal |
|---|---|---|
| Planning complexity | Lower | Higher (cut-times, schedules, drayage coordination) |
| Visibility | Generally good (ELD-based) | Varies by IMC (can be excellent or fragmented) |
| Exception management | Single carrier to contact | Multiple parties (IMC should own this) |
| Internal process change | Minimal | May require adjusting order patterns, lead times |
Winner on operations: Truckload is simpler. Intermodal requires more planning but rewards it with savings.
| Factor | Truckload | Intermodal |
|---|---|---|
| Sustainability/emissions | Higher carbon footprint | 3-4x more fuel efficient; material emissions reduction |
| Network diversification | Single mode exposure | Modal diversification |
| Shipper perception | Neutral | "Greener" positioning with customers/investors |
| Long-term rate trajectory | Cyclical, tends higher over time | More stable, structural cost advantage |
Winner on strategy: Intermodal, for shippers with sustainability goals or desire for modal diversification.
Some lanes genuinely could go either way. These are typically:
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.
We've covered this, but it's worth repeating. Linehaul-to-linehaul comparisons are meaningless. Always compare total landed cost, door to door.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Use this checklist when evaluating intermodal vs. truckload on a specific lane:
Lane Characteristics:
What is the door-to-door distance?
Cost Comparison:
What is the all-in truckload rate (including fuel and expected accessorials)?
Service Comparison:
What is the truckload transit time?
Operational Fit:
Can you adjust shipping schedules to meet intermodal cut-times?
Strategic Factors:
Does sustainability/emissions reduction matter for this freight?
Decision:
Does intermodal deliver meaningful cost savings on this lane?
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 ...
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.
If you've read all three articles in this series, here's what you now know:
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.
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:
For more about InTek Logistics - and the industry in general, go to our Resources or visit the highlighted pages below.