Vietnam market entry: scoring the decision
The essentials in 30 seconds
- Scoring a Vietnam market entry means rating Vietnam and the status quo on 5 weighted criteria.
- The illustrative example rates supplier depth, logistics, landed cost, currency exposure, and concentration risk.
- Vietnam totals 7.00 and the status quo 6.30 in the worked example.
- Without concentration risk, the status quo leads at 7.35 against 6.75.
- EQOS Asia scores such choices on 9 structural dimensions (EQOS Asia method page, 2026).
A Vietnam market entry looks attractive in a slide and demanding in a spreadsheet. Scoring the decision turns it into numbers a board can question, as of October 2026. This page uses an illustrative sourcing move and sits within the wider comparison of six ASEAN markets, where Vietnam is one candidate among peers.
On this page
Compare the EQOS Asia offers and request a 30-minute pre-diagnostic.
What does scoring a Vietnam market entry decision involve?
Scoring a Vietnam market entry means rating Vietnam and at least one alternative on the same criteria, then adding the weighted ratings. The alternative matters as much as Vietnam. Most boards compare Vietnam with a vague hope, whereas a score compares it with a real option, usually the current site, so the result answers whether to move at all.
The method gives each criterion a weight, each option a rating from 1 to 10, and each rating a line of evidence. All figures on this page are illustrative and show the arithmetic only. This page is general information, not legal, tax or investment advice, and the choice of entity, licence, or incentive belongs with licensed advisers in Vietnam.
Which objective should a Vietnam market entry decision start from?
Start with one sentence that names what Vietnam must deliver. A buyer of components wants a second source. A brand wants production capacity near its customers. A retailer wants Vietnamese shoppers. These three objectives produce three different scores for the same country, so the sentence comes before any rating and stays visible on the sheet.
This page follows the first objective, a China+1 sourcing move for a mid-size buyer. The aim is to hold part of the supply outside a single country while keeping quality and delivery. A clear aim also names the alternative to beat, which here is the current supplier base, and it tells the team which evidence to collect first.
Which criteria score a Vietnam market entry for a sourcing move?
Five criteria fit the sourcing aim. Supplier depth asks whether qualified suppliers exist for the product. Logistics rates ports, road links, and lead times. Landed cost compares the delivered cost per unit. Currency exposure rates the effect of the Vietnamese dong against the invoicing currency. Concentration risk rates how dependent the buyer stays on one country.
Each criterion needs a source the team can name, such as supplier quotes, a freight forwarder’s lead times, or a treasury note. A criterion without a source gets a lower rating and a flag for follow-up. The same five lines serve every sourcing option, which keeps the comparison fair and lets a reviewer trace any number back to its origin.
How do you weight a Vietnam market entry decision?
Weights sum to 100 and show what the buyer values. The illustrative sheet gives supplier depth 25, logistics 20, landed cost 20, currency exposure 15, and concentration risk 20. Each executive distributes the 100 points alone, and the group averages the results, which exposes early any difference between finance and operations.
Concentration risk deserves a deliberate weight, because it is the criterion most easily dropped. Cost, quality, and lead time have owners inside the company, while dependence on one country belongs to nobody until the board names it. Writing the weight before the ratings forces that conversation and protects the later total from being adjusted toward a preferred answer.
What does a worked Vietnam market entry score look like?
Rate Vietnam 6 on supplier depth, 7 on logistics, 8 on landed cost, 6 on currency exposure, and 8 on concentration risk. The total is 0.25 × 6 + 0.20 × 7 + 0.20 × 8 + 0.15 × 6 + 0.20 × 8, which equals 1.50 + 1.40 + 1.60 + 0.90 + 1.60, or 7.00.
The status quo is rated 9, 8, 5, 7, and 2, giving 2.25 + 1.60 + 1.00 + 1.05 + 0.40, or 6.30. Vietnam leads by 0.70 points. The current suppliers win on depth and logistics, and Vietnam wins on landed cost and diversification. The score does not say Vietnam is better in general, it says Vietnam is better for this buyer under these weights.
What happens to the Vietnam score when concentration risk is removed?
Set the concentration weight to 0 and spread its 20 points over the others: supplier depth 30, logistics 25, landed cost 25, and currency exposure 20. Vietnam falls to 6.75 and the status quo rises to 7.35, so the current site ranks first. One extra column of arithmetic shows the reversal.
The reversal names the real question. The decision hinges on how much the board values diversification, and the other four criteria matter less. If the board gives concentration risk a weight of 20, Vietnam wins, and if it gives it nothing, the status quo wins. A team that sees this early debates the right topic instead of ratings.
How do you take a Vietnam market entry decision to an EQOS Asia score?
The grid fits one move and a handful of criteria. When ratings rest on opinion, when criteria influence each other, or when the review repeats every quarter, the EQOS Asia method adds structure: it measures a situation on 9 structural dimensions and projects 3 trajectories at 30, 60, and 90 days and at 6, 12, and 24 months (EQOS Asia method page, 2026).
Start with the free simulator or a Study at US$1,369, the first level that activates all 3 pillars (EQOS Asia pricing page, 2026). A 30-minute pre-diagnostic on Singapore time, held under NDA, shows which dimensions carry the most risk. Bring the objective, the alternative, and the currencies involved, and the call can leave with a first read on the next step.
See also in this guide
Frequently asked questions
Which criteria score a Vietnam market entry?
The criteria follow the objective. A sourcing move scores supplier depth, logistics, landed cost, currency exposure, and concentration risk. A market-led entry scores demand, payment habits, and channel access instead. Name the objective first, choose 4 to 6 criteria that serve it, and give each one a written source.
Why compare Vietnam with the status quo?
A score that compares Vietnam with a vague hope always favours Vietnam. The status quo is a real option with real costs and real strengths. Rating both on the same criteria shows whether the move adds value and which single weight decides the case.
Does this page give advice on setting up in Vietnam?
No. The ratings are illustrative and show how the arithmetic works. This page is general information, not legal, tax or investment advice. Entity, licence, and incentive questions belong with licensed advisers in Vietnam, and their findings become the evidence behind your own ratings.
What does the EQOS Asia pre-diagnostic add?
A free 30-minute video session on Singapore time (SGT) applies the EQOS Asia method to your real case and shows which of the 9 dimensions carry the most risk. It runs under NDA and leaves you with a clear read on the next step (EQOS Asia contact page, 2026).
Test your knowledge
1. How many criteria does the illustrative Vietnam sheet use?
- 5
- 3
- 9
Show the answer
5.
2. What is the weighted total for Vietnam in the worked example?
- 6.30
- 7.35
- 7.00
Show the answer
7.00.
3. Which option leads when the concentration risk weight falls to 0?
- Vietnam
- The status quo
- Neither
Show the answer
The status quo.
4. What do the weights on the sheet sum to?
- 10
- 100
- 1,000
Show the answer
100.
5. Which objective does this page follow?
- Selling to Vietnamese shoppers
- Raising capital
- A China+1 sourcing move
Show the answer
A China+1 sourcing move.
About the author
Stéphane Jambu
President, EQOS Forecast Asia
Stéphane Jambu leads EQOS Forecast Asia and works as a consultant in e-commerce, search visibility, and AI. LinkedIn profile
Sources: EQOS Asia method page (eqos-asia.com/method.html), pricing page (eqos-asia.com/pricing.html) and contact page (eqos-asia.com/contact.html), consulted on 22 October 2026. Page updated on 22 October 2026.