Landed cost calculator

The supplier invoice is one line of the real cost. Freight, insurance, duty, and fees routinely add 20-40% on top before a unit ever reaches a warehouse — and every pricing decision made against the invoice price alone inherits that gap.

Who reaches for this

What all four have in common is a supplier price that isn't the real number — the sections below build the true per-unit cost up piece by piece rather than treating the factory invoice as a finished figure.

The two terms get used interchangeably, but they answer different questions at different points in time. Landed cost is a forward-looking estimate, built before a purchase order or pricing decision, from freight quotes, duty rates, and fee schedules that haven't happened yet. COGS is a backward-looking accounting figure, recorded once actual invoices and customs entries settle.

A pricing model that skips landed cost and works from supplier price alone isn't using COGS either — it's using an incomplete number that happens to look like one. The two should converge as estimates get replaced with actuals; the gap between them, tracked over time, is also a useful check on how accurate the landed cost estimating process actually is.

That distinction matters most at the moment a pricing decision actually gets made — setting a retail price, evaluating a supplier quote, or deciding whether a new product is worth sourcing at all. Waiting for finalized COGS to make that call means pricing reactively, months after the decision that actually needed the number. Landed cost exists specifically to answer the question before the commitment is made, not after.

Bookkeeping teams sometimes push back on carrying an estimated landed cost figure anywhere near the books, on the grounds that it isn't a verified number yet. That's the right instinct for the accounting side of the business — landed cost belongs in a pricing model or a purchasing decision, not on a balance sheet, until it's been replaced by settled invoices and customs entries. Keeping the two clearly separated, one for decisions and one for the books, avoids the confusion of treating a forecast as if it were already a fact.

CIF value is the foundation everything else builds on:

Duty, brokerage, port fees, and inland transport all sit on top of CIF rather than inside it — CIF is specifically the customs valuation base, not the full landed cost. Confusing the two is a common way an estimate quietly omits duty entirely, understating the final per-unit figure by whatever the duty rate happens to be.

The three-letter code on a supplier quote determines exactly which of these costs the quoted price already includes — and comparing two quotes on different terms without adjusting for that difference is comparing two different numbers as if they were the same one.

A $4.00 EXW quote and a $5.20 DDP quote from two different suppliers aren't directly comparable numbers — the DDP quote likely already reflects something close to full landed cost, while the EXW quote needs every other section on this page added on top before the two can be compared fairly.

A DDP quote isn't automatically the better deal just because it looks simpler — the supplier is still paying for freight, duty, and brokerage somewhere, and folding it all into one number removes the buyer's ability to shop each piece separately for a better rate. A landed cost built up from an EXW or FOB quote piece by piece, using this page's formula, is often cheaper in total than the equivalent DDP quote — the convenience of one number comes with a real cost.

Splitting a shipment's freight cost evenly across every unit is the simplest approach, and the wrong one the moment a shipment carries products of meaningfully different size or weight.

Take a container carrying 1,000 units of a small item (0.5kg each) and 1,000 units of a large item (5kg each), with $3,000 in total freight. A flat per-unit split assigns $1.50 in freight to every unit, regardless of size. Allocating by actual weight instead — the correct method for most freight billed by weight or volume — gives the small item roughly $0.27 in freight per unit and the large item roughly $2.73. The flat split overcharges the small item's landed cost by more than 5× and undercharges the large item by nearly half.

For ocean freight, allocate by volume (cubic meters or cubic feet, since ocean rates are typically volume-driven); for air freight, allocate by weight, since air rates are typically weight-driven. Only use a flat per-unit split when every SKU in the shipment is genuinely comparable in size and weight — otherwise it silently misprices every product in a mixed shipment in opposite directions.

The practical consequence shows up in pricing, not just in the landed cost report. A small item that's been overcharged freight looks less profitable than it actually is, which can lead to raising its price unnecessarily or dropping it from the catalog. A large item that's been undercharged looks more profitable than it actually is, which can lead to under-pricing it or over-investing in ad spend that a corrected margin wouldn't support. Both mistakes point in the wrong direction on the two products at once.

Duty is the fee most estimates remember. Two US Customs user fees are the ones most commonly missed entirely: the Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) and the Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF), both separate from duty and both real per-shipment costs on a formal entry.

On the $22,855 CIF shipment from the worked example above, MPF comes to $22,855 × 0.3464% = $79.17 — between the minimum and maximum, so it applies as calculated. On a much smaller shipment, the $31.67 minimum often ends up mattering more than the rate itself: a $5,000 CIF shipment's raw MPF calculation is only $17.32, well under the minimum, so the full $31.67 applies instead — a disproportionately larger fee burden on small, frequent shipments than on fewer, larger ones. That dynamic is exactly why consolidating smaller, more frequent orders into fewer, larger shipments is a common cost-reduction lever for importers running near the MPF minimum threshold regularly.

De minimis rules, which historically allowed low-value shipments below a set threshold simplified or reduced-duty entry, have been the subject of active policy change in recent years. The specific current threshold and treatment for a given country and shipment value is worth confirming directly against current customs guidance rather than assumed from prior-year rules, since this is one of the fastest-moving parts of import compliance right now.

The practical takeaway for a landed cost estimate isn't to build in a single current threshold as a permanent assumption — it's to treat de minimis rules as a line item worth re-checking before each shipment, not once at the start of a sourcing relationship. A shipment structure that made sense under one set of rules can become meaningfully more expensive, or occasionally cheaper, once the underlying policy shifts, without anything about the product or supplier changing at all.

Landed cost isn't just an accounting detail — it's the variable cost input that feeds directly into break-even and ad-spend targets. A landed cost that's understated because freight or duty was left out doesn't just misstate margin; it understates how many orders are actually needed to break even and how efficient ad spend needs to be to stay profitable.

Using the $5.01 landed cost from the worked example above in place of the raw $4.20 supplier cost, on a product selling for $19.99: contribution margin drops from $15.79 (using the understated $4.20 cost) to $14.98 (using true landed cost) — a small-looking difference per unit that compounds across volume, and directly raises the order count needed to clear fixed costs. Run the corrected number through the e-commerce break-even calculator to see the actual order-count impact, or through the break-even ROAS calculator to see how much it tightens the ad-spend ceiling.

This is the reason landed cost estimating isn't a one-time exercise done at sourcing and then forgotten. Every calculator downstream of variable cost — break-even, contribution margin, ROAS targets — inherits whatever landed cost figure feeds it. An accurate landed cost calculated once and never updated becomes a slowly worsening error across every one of those tools as freight rates, duty rates, and fee schedules drift over time.

Most real shipments carry more than one product, often with meaningfully different dimensions and weights sharing the same container. The per-unit allocation principle from the freight section above applies across the whole SKU mix, not just to freight.

Duty allocation follows the same logic when different SKUs in a shipment carry different tariff classifications and duty rates — a blended duty rate applied evenly across a mixed shipment misprices every SKU that doesn't sit exactly at the blended average, the same way a flat freight split does. Calculating landed cost per SKU, not per shipment, is the more reliable approach the moment a container carries genuinely different products.

The operational cost of doing this properly is real — tracking per-SKU weight, volume, and duty classification takes more bookkeeping than a single blended shipment total. For a business running more than a handful of SKUs through the same supply chain, that bookkeeping cost is worth it: the alternative is a set of per-product margins that are each individually wrong, in opposite directions, every single shipment.

A reasonable middle ground for a growing catalog is grouping SKUs into a small number of weight or volume tiers — small, medium, large — rather than tracking every individual product with full precision. That captures most of the accuracy gain from per-SKU allocation without the full bookkeeping overhead, and is often the practical starting point before a business has the volume or systems to justify true per-SKU tracking.

Run your own numbers above, free, or see how landed cost changes your order-count target on the e-commerce break-even calculator.