Rejected Loads Cost Shippers 20% More as Contract Resets Hit 13%

FreightWaves' Sonar on Thursday released three truckload dataset groups that put hard numbers on routing guide failures — and the numbers sting. Loads accepted on the third-plus tender now cost shippers 19.84% more than first-tender freight, roughly double the second-tender premium of 9.25%.

The three indices — Routing Guide Premiums, Routing Guide Acceptance Share, and Contract Rate Change Direction — update daily on a seven-day rolling average. Crucially, they measure shipper-to-provider costs, not carrier operating costs or broker margins. That distinction matters. For the first time, shippers have a market benchmark for what backup coverage actually costs, rather than a guess.

What does the premium data show?

The Routing Guide Premiums index (RGP2.USA and RGP3.USA) tracks the median percent change in all-in costs when a load falls to the second or third-plus tender instead of the first.

• Second tender: 9.25% premium, above the 12-month average of 8.77%.
• Third-plus tender: 19.84%, nearly double the second-tender cost.
• Seasonal peaks: premiums on third-plus tenders topped 35% in late December, early February, and June into early July.

Both readings tower over last November, when second-tender premiums hovered near 4% and capacity was only beginning to tighten. In other words, the price of a routing guide failure has more than doubled in under a year.

Where is acceptance slipping?

The Routing Guide Acceptance Share index (RGAS1, 2, and 3 USA) tracks the share of accepted loads at each tender position from first through fifth-and-beyond.

First-tender acceptance currently stands at 89.29%, below the 12-month average of 89.54% and well off the roughly 93% posted last November. The second position accounts for 6.67% of accepted loads; third-plus takes 4.16%. More freight is cascading to backup providers as the market has tightened over the past year — and every cascade now carries a measurable surcharge.

"If your first tender acceptance is slipping faster than the national number, then there's a problem in your routing guide, not just with the market," said Julie Van de Kamp.

That's the practical question every shipper should be asking this week. The national benchmark is now on the table. Compare, and you'll know whether to blame the market or your own routing guide.

Contract resets at a three-year high

Van de Kamp called the third index, Contract Rate Change Direction (CRCD.USA), the most significant of the three. It measures the average percent change between new and previous contract base rates, filtering out any rate that wasn't stable for at least 90 days to strip out short-term noise.

The index currently reads 13.11%, meaning new contracts are resetting roughly 13% above the rates they replaced. That's up from about 4% last November, above the 12-month average of 8.52%, and the strongest contract inflation since early 2022. It's nearly four times the five-year average of 3.47%. The reading peaked above 16% in early October before easing slightly.

The historical arc is stark. At the same point in 2025, the comparable reading was about 4%. In 2024, it ranged between 3% and 6%. In 2023, contract rates were negative — costs were falling as lanes reset, bottoming near negative 9% in spring that year. Resets turned positive in mid-2024 and accelerated sharply from mid-2026 onward.

The combined picture

Van de Kamp's framing: routing guides are holding near historical averages, but more freight is cascading to backup providers than a year ago. When it does, shippers pay roughly 10% more at the second tender and 20% more at the third-plus tender. And new contracts are repricing at the strongest rate since 2022.

The datasets are live now in Sonar's full enterprise UI. With contract inflation running at four times its five-year norm and third-tender premiums flirting with 20%, the shippers who benchmark their acceptance rates now will be the ones budgeting accurately when the next routing guide crack appears.