Gasgoo Munich- The 2026 China auto market is a study in contrasts: bustling on the surface, but chilly at the core.

On the surface, green license plates are everywhere, the penetration rate of new energy vehicles keeps climbing, and new models are launching one after another—the market looks vibrant. But beneath the surface, a profit dilemma is hard to ignore. Latest data shared by Cui Dongshu, secretary-general of the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA), shows the auto industry’s profit margin dipped further to 3.4% in the first four months of 2026.

Image source: Cui Dongshu (same below)

Despite the influx of new vehicles on the street, automakers and their supply chain partners are feeling the pinch. Revenue inched up 1.1%, but costs climbed 2%, causing profits to plunge 17%. This isn’t just a numbers game on paper—it’s a warning signal for the health of the entire industrial ecosystem.

Viewed historically, 3.4% isn’t unprecedented. Data shows margins hit 3.2% in February 2023, 3.4% in September 2024, and slipped to 3.3% in November 2024. By December 2025, they had fallen to 1.8%. In other words, the industry has been struggling around the 3% level for years, occasionally dipping to much lower depths.

When scale expansion no longer translates into profitability, we have to ask: in this massive industrial chain, exactly who is capturing the profits?

Squeezed from Both Sides: Auto Makers Trapped in a Profit Squeeze

The industry’s current predicament can be described as a squeeze from both sides. Cui notes that as production scales up and the PPI rises, upstream sectors like non-ferrous metals and oil have seen profits surge, while end-users are holding off on purchases due to various factors. Caught in the middle, OEMs are under unprecedented pressure.

First, look at the widening gap between income and spending. According to Cui, the auto industry’s total revenue for January through April 2026 was 3.3129 trillion yuan, a slight 1.1% year-on-year increase. That slight gain came at a high cost: brands were competing intensely on price, specs, and service. Yet, the price was steep: total costs hit 2.9404 trillion yuan, up 2% year-on-year. This rapidly devoured what were already thin margins.

This explains why sales figures look decent, but a glance at the profit statement reveals many companies are sacrificing profits for market share. Traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) players are under pressure on two fronts—fighting price wars to maintain share while pouring billions into new tech R&D. Profits, naturally, are suffering under the weight.

Cui’s data clearly reveals this long-term slide. In 2014, the industry’s sales profit rate hovered around 9%. By 2024, it fell to 4.3%, slipped to 4.1% in 2025, and hit 3.4% in the first four months of 2026. While April’s single-month 3.7% was slightly better than the first quarter, the long-term view shows a 3% margin has become the norm. December 2025’s 1.8% was the low point.

A telling detail is the shift in profit per vehicle. Data shows that from January to April 2026, the average revenue per vehicle in the industrial chain was 342,000 yuan, up 6% year-on-year. But costs rose in tandem to 303,000 yuan, up 6.93%. Cost growth outpaced revenue, leaving a gross profit of just 12,000 yuan per vehicle—down 12.1% year-on-year. This means the margin manufacturers can actually retain is shrinking rapidly with every car sold.

Notably, in the broader downstream industrial sector, auto is practically lagging behind. The average profit margin for downstream industries from January to April was 6.1%; auto managed just 3.4%, less than half. Compared to high-profit sectors like alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceuticals, building cars has become a low-return business—massive resource input, huge pressure, and very little profit to show for it.

Upstream Profits Surge, Battery Costs Soar: Who Is Capturing the Value?

With manufacturers under constant pressure, a natural question arises: where is the money flowing? Looking at profit distribution across the chain, upstream mining and power batteries are indeed capturing the larger share.

The furthest upstream, the mining sector, is generating substantial profits. Cui’s analysis points out that from January to April 2026, mining profits jumped 26% year-on-year, with margins staying at a high 20.5%. Non-ferrous metals—crucial for autos—saw profits surge 40.8%, while the oil sector grew 32.3%. High prices for commodities like metals and oil are directly driving up the base cost of manufacturing.

NIO CEO William Li, speaking at a recent ES9 media event, noted that raw material costs—including nickel, cobalt, and lithium carbonate—have risen this year, adding over 10,000 yuan to the cost of a single car. He mentioned that commodities and memory chips affect more profitable, faster-growing industries too, leaving automakers with little bargaining power. Memory prices haven’t dropped since rising, and raw material cost hikes won’t ease in the short term—costs companies must absorb themselves.

This trend of profit concentrating upstream essentially creates a squeeze on the mid- and downstream. When raw material prices surge, mid-stream manufacturers often have limited room to negotiate and must absorb most of the pressure. Just as if flour and sugar prices spike, a baker cannot easily pass that on to customers and must shoulder the burden first.

The battery equation is even more direct. Cui points out that while lithium battery export prices are falling, domestic battery prices have soared. The problem for automakers that don’t make their own batteries is severe, leading to a sustained slide in profits.

This accurately identifies the issue. The logic is stark: even though export prices for lithium batteries are dropping, robust domestic demand and cost pass-throughs from upstream lithium carbonate mean domestic procurement prices remain stubbornly high. For most automakers lacking in-house battery production, battery procurement is a fixed cost—typically accounting for 30% to 40% of the vehicle’s total cost, if not more.

This means a significant chunk of vehicle margin is constrained by battery costs. It also explains why leaders like BYD, Great Wall Motor, Geely, and GAC Aion are accelerating the construction of their own battery plants. Through vertical integration, automakers can regain some control over costs and profits.

Another signal worth watching: as end-market competition intensifies and price wars persist, automakers have little room to raise prices, while upstream raw material and battery costs remain inflexible. This pressure from both ends makes profit statements fragile. If sales fluctuate or raw material prices rise further, companies already hovering near the break-even point could face severe cash flow strain.

But is upstream solely to blame for the profit slide? The answer isn’t that simple. In fact, two other pressures are eroding margins: the endless price war—where companies trade profit for market share—and the strategic costs of energy transition—massive R&D spending booked now for future returns. These three combined create the current low-margin trap.

Saying Goodbye to Cutthroat Growth: How to Find New Profit Levers?

Facing shrinking margins and profits being eroded by upstream and downstream alike, the industry stands at a crossroads. The old extensive growth model—trading profit for volume—has clearly run its course. As the government pushes back against excessive competition, the sector is hunting for new profit pillars.

The call to end internal rivalry isn’t coming from nowhere. Since 2025, from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to the Ministry of Commerce and local associations, efforts have been made to guide the industry away from disorderly price wars. The realization is growing that long-term internal conflict weakens R&D innovation and ultimately hurts the competitiveness of China’s auto industry.

Specifically on how to break the deadlock, calls for fuel-electric parity are becoming reality. For years, NEVs enjoyed purchase tax exemptions, traffic privileges, and other perks. While necessary to nurture the market, NEV penetration is now high enough that the market has some self-sustaining drive.

Pushing for parity lets ICE and NEVs compete on a level playing field. This stabilizes the ICE base, easing transition pains for traditional automakers, while forcing NEV players to compete on product strength rather than policy handouts. This weeds out inefficient capacity reliant on subsidies. Cui has repeatedly stressed that stabilizing ICE consumption and promoting scrappage are vital for healthy industry development.

Second, automakers need to prioritize control over core supply chains. The choices of some leaders suggest the future competition isn’t just about models and intelligence, but about supply chain mastery and cost control. BYD’s vertical integration model—using self-developed batteries to cut costs—offers a viable path. Thus, self-developed batteries and vertical integration are becoming strategic options for more top-tier automakers.

Of course, there are dissenting voices. Some automakers believe external supply chains are mature enough and that the ROI on self-development remains unproven. But one thing is certain: balancing battery control with ROI is a test every automaker must answer.

Third, shifting from price wars to technology and value competition. As lithium carbonate prices rationalize and battery tech matures, the next growth opportunity will be intelligence. High margins never come from specification stacking, but from unique tech experiences. Whether it’s smart driving deployment or smart cockpit ecosystems, those who can create new revenue streams from software and services will escape the low-margin trap of selling hardware alone.

Finally, consumers need to face a reality: rock-bottom prices are often unsustainable. If an industry operates with minimal profit or loss for too long, product quality, after-sales service, and future R&D will become unsustainable. Allowing companies reasonable profits ensures a positive cycle for the entire ecosystem.

Conclusion

The data shared by Cui Dongshu puts this recurring issue front and center: scale is up, profits are down. A 3.4% margin isn’t the most extreme we’ve seen recently, but hovering around 3% for so long signals a structural trap, not a temporary blip.

For visionary automakers, the real moat isn’t the few thousand extra units on a sales chart. It’s autonomous control over core tech—whether battery cells, autonomous driving algorithms, or brand premiums that survive cycles. Those who build advantages in these dimensions are the ones likely to survive the second half—and thrive.