Guide · Our own research
We Tested the Official Trackers of 18 Shipping Lines
Only 3 of 18 carrier trackers accept a container number inside the URL, so a link can open the result directly: Maersk, ONE and PIL. Another 4 — MSC, Evergreen, HMM and Matson — were tested and ignore URL parameters entirely, forcing customers through a form. The remaining 11 we have not tested, and we say so rather than guessing. All 18 accept a container number and a bill-of-lading number; only 10 accept a booking number; 15 have a mobile app. The trackers were tested on 3 August 2026. The full results are below and downloadable as JSON or CSV.
Every guide to container tracking tells you to "enter your number on the carrier’s website". Nobody publishes what those websites actually do — which identifiers they accept, whether a link can carry the number, whether the tracker exists behind a login. We tested them and are publishing the results, including the gaps.
This page is the method and the findings. The same data drives the tracking tools on this site, so it is maintained rather than written once: when a carrier changes its tracker, the table below changes with it.

The numbers in this chart
| Carrier | Number | B/L | Booking | App | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSC | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| Maersk | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| CMA CGM | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ? |
| COSCO | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ? |
| OOCL | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ? |
| Hapag-Lloyd | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ? |
| ONE | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Evergreen | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| HMM | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| Yang Ming | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | ? |
| ZIM | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | ? |
| Wan Hai | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | ? |
| PIL | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| SITC | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | ? |
| KMTC | ✓ | ✓ | — | — | ? |
| Matson | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| Crowley | ✓ | ✓ | — | — | ? |
| SM Line | ✓ | ✓ | — | — | ? |
Method: what we did and did not test
We opened each carrier’s official tracking page in a desktop browser with a real container number and recorded three things: which identifier types the form accepts (container number, bill of lading, booking reference), whether a URL carrying the number opens the result directly, and whether the carrier publishes a mobile app. Tracking pages were reached from the carrier’s own navigation, never from an aggregator.
A deep link counts as verified only when a URL containing the number returns the tracking result on load. Where a carrier accepts the parameter but ignores it — the page opens on an empty form — we record that as a tested negative, which is a different and more useful finding than silence.
Of the 18 carriers, 11 are marked "not tested". That is a statement about our coverage, not about their capabilities: we have not run the test, so we do not publish a verdict. Marking untested rows as "no" would inflate the headline finding and is exactly the kind of quiet error this study exists to avoid.
Fleet ranks are Alphaliner’s top 100 as read on 18 October 2026 (the list changes daily), and alliance membership is as the lines’ own documents state it. Prefix ownership comes from the BIC register’s own page for each code; 15 of the 85 prefixes are also confirmed by a document of the company itself — the method is described on how we verify data.
Results: 18 carriers, tested
The headline is the deep-link column. Only 3 carriers out of 18 let a URL carry the container number, which means that for the other 15 no tool — ours or anyone else’s — can hand a customer a working one-click tracking link. That single design decision explains why container tracking still feels like a chore in 2026.
The identifier columns are more uniform than expected: every tracker takes a container number and a B/L number, so the common advice to "use the B/L if the container number fails" is at least universally possible. Booking numbers are the split: 10 of 18 accept them, and the table shows which 8 do not.
| Carrier | Container no. | B/L | Booking | Deep link | Mobile app |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSC | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | ✓ yes |
| Maersk | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes |
| CMA CGM | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | not tested | ✓ yes |
| COSCO Shipping Lines | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | not tested | ✓ yes |
| OOCL | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | not tested | ✓ yes |
| Hapag-Lloyd | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | not tested | ✓ yes |
| ONE (Ocean Network Express) | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes |
| Evergreen | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | ✓ yes |
| HMM | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | ✓ yes |
| Yang Ming | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | not tested | ✓ yes |
| ZIM | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | not tested | ✓ yes |
| Wan Hai Lines | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | not tested | ✓ yes |
| PIL (Pacific International Lines) | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | ✓ yes | ✓ yes |
| SITC Container Lines | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | not tested | ✓ yes |
| KMTC | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | not tested | — no |
| Matson | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | ✓ yes |
| Crowley | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | not tested | — no |
| SM Line | ✓ yes | ✓ yes | — no | not tested | — no |
Deep link = a URL carrying the container number opens the result directly. "Not tested" means we have not run the test, not that the feature is absent. Tested 2026-08-03.
The prefix problem: who actually owns the box
The second half of this research is ownership. A container number begins with a four-letter BIC prefix identifying the owner, and the industry routinely gets specific prefixes wrong — including tracking aggregators that ought to know better. We hold 85 prefixes across 28 owners, each read on the BIC register’s own page for its code, and 15 also confirmed by a document of the company itself.
The misattributions worth naming: TCKU is Triton, a leasing company, though it is widely labelled as Maersk. TEMU and TGBU are Textainer, frequently credited to Triton — and TEMU predates the shopping app of the same name by decades. SEGU and GESU are registered to Textainer on the BIC register, though older tables still show them as Seaco. CBHU is registered to Florens, the COSCO group’s leasing arm, yet the boxes run in COSCO’s own fleet.
The distinction matters commercially, not just pedantically: 23 of our 85 prefixes belong to lessors, and a leased box is tracked with whichever line booked the freight, not with the company whose name is on the door. Send a customer to a leasing company’s website and they will find nothing at all.
What this means if you ship containers
Read the prefix before you open a website. If the four letters belong to a lessor, skip the owner entirely and go to the line named on your booking confirmation or bill of lading — the container tracking checker does this routing automatically.
Expect to type. With only 3 deep-link carriers, any workflow built on saved links will break for most shipments; a saved list of tracker URLs plus the number on your clipboard is the realistic setup.
Keep the B/L number to hand as the universal fallback: it is the one identifier every tested carrier accepts, and it survives the case where a container is re-stuffed or the number was misread off the door.
Open data and corrections
The full results are published as an open dataset — carriers.json and carriers.csv — free to reuse with attribution to contsize.com. Fields cover prefixes, role, tracker URL, accepted identifiers, deep-link status, app availability, alliance and fleet rank.
If you work at a carrier and our row is wrong, or you have tested one of the 11 untested trackers, tell us and we will re-test and update both the table and the dataset. Corrections are logged publicly in the correction log.
Frequently asked questions
How many carrier trackers support deep links?
Only 3 of 18: Maersk, ONE and PIL open the tracking result from a URL containing the container number. Another 4 were tested and ignore the parameter, and 11 have not been tested by us.
Which container tracking identifier works everywhere?
The bill-of-lading number and the container number both work on all 18 trackers tested; booking numbers are accepted by only 10 of them, so the B/L is the safest fallback.
Why can I not track a TCKU or TEMU container on the owner’s site?
Because both are leasing-company prefixes — TCKU belongs to Triton and TEMU to Textainer — and lessors hold no voyage data. Track with the shipping line named on your booking confirmation instead.
What does "not tested" mean in the results table?
It means we have not run the browser test for that carrier, so we publish no verdict. It is not a claim that the feature is missing — recording it honestly is the difference between a study and a guess.
When was this study run?
The trackers were tested in a browser on 3 August 2026, and every owner prefix was read on the BIC register on 18 October 2026. The table on this page renders live from that dataset, so it changes when the data does rather than going stale in prose.
Can I reuse this data?
Yes — the dataset is free to reuse with attribution to contsize.com, available as JSON and CSV. Journalists and tool builders are welcome to it; a link back to this page is the only condition.