Huawei continues to lose share of booming global telecoms equipment market

graph chart down decline fall

Telecoms analyst firm Dell’Oro has published its Q1 21 numbers for the overall equipment market and they show Ericsson and Nokia continuing to close the gap with Huawei.

The scope of the data covers Broadband Access, Microwave & Optical Transport, Mobile Core & Radio Access Network, SP Router & Switch kit. Dell’Oro reckons revenues for the sector jumped an impressive 15% year-on-year in the quarter, although it should be noted that Q1 2020 was when the world was shutting down due to the Covid pandemic.

As you can see in the chart below, Huawei’s global market share peaked at the start of 2020 and has been falling significantly since then. Pretty much all other major vendors, bar ZTE and Ciena seem to have benefitted from Huawei’s slide and the signs are that Huawei’s non-China share will continue to fall off a cliff.

“At a high level, the suppliers did not report any material impact from the ongoing supply chain shortages in the first quarter,” notes the blog announcing the data. “At the same time, multiple vendors did indicate that the visibility going into the second half is more limited.

“Overall, the Dell’Oro analyst team is adjusting the aggregate forecast upward and now project the total telecom equipment market to advance 5% to 10% in 2021, up from 3% to 5% with the last forecast.”

The biggest regional drivers were apparently North America and Asia Pacific which, while no great surprise, serves as another reminder of the extent to which Europe is dragging its feet on 5G. It will presumption that it will get there eventually is probably one of the reasons behind the upgraded forecast, as well as the welcome news that the telecoms sector seems to be coping well with the chip drought.


  1. Avatar Alex Sanders 16/06/2021 @ 9:46 pm

    The data and the rhetoric don’t match. China’s 5G buildout was completed ahead of most of the rest of the world, so it’s natural that Huawei’s share of the total revenue pie was going to shrink going forwards. Using language like “fall off a cliff” to describe going from 30% to 27% seems like a willful misinterpretation of data to push a narrative, especially when the total market size is projected to grow 5% to 10%. In a market growing by 5% to 10%, losing 3% share still means revenue growth. In the context of the past two to three years: Nokia going from 18% down to 15%, Ericsson going from 14% to 16%, Cisco going from 7% to 6%, Ciena/Samsung fluctuating at around 2%, this is all a nothing burger seasoned with copium.

  2. Avatar Gary Jones 17/06/2021 @ 5:49 am

    I think personally what America has done to Huawei as a company is absolutely disgusting. The only ones that have been proven to spy on people are Google and Apple. No punishment for them though because they are American. Maybe the rest of the world should boycott them and only buy Chinese phones.

    • Avatar Matt Silvester 17/06/2021 @ 11:57 am

      China refuse to accept an even playing field, they expect markets to open to them whilst staying closed to outside companies within China. As an Australian, I see evidence of their tactics of bullying and intimidation first hand.
      Boycott all Chinese products until they agree to fair competition.
      Implementing 5G infrastructure using China products would pose a great risk to any government!

      • Avatar Jerome 17/06/2021 @ 5:43 pm

        Your mindset, just like the author trying to exaggerate some abnormal of up and down of hwawei revenue which he did it many times, is sick and disgusting just like your sick Prime Minister.

    • Avatar Cletus the Clown 17/06/2021 @ 4:13 pm

      Point is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with spying. That’s all a big smokescreen. But lets tease this out for a second, so you’re saying that the MSS, APT units 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 40, 41 (check aren’t spying for China?
      Not wanting to talk out of turn here, but their knowledge of many networks seems curiously well developed. Huawei merely being present in these networks gives them a huge degree of knowledge on the entire topology of the network – all that Huawei kit has to plug into other components, and so even with a limited presence, a good level of detail is known about where and what everything is.
      Now there has been a lot of circumstantial evidence (no one can say for sure) that these topologies have been passed on to whatever government departments handle this within the CCP. When I say circumstantial, these APT groups have been seen breaking into these networks, knowing exact IP addresses and ports with no mistakes at any point. So we do have a pretty good idea what is going on.
      But – this isn’t the point. No one is accusing Huawei of hacking, they would be incredibly stupid to do so knowing they are being watched as closely as they are, and there are a plethora of other groups within China who do that, with a little help from a network topology file or two that happened to be slipped under the door.
      The point is one of control. If China supplies all of your telecoms equipment, then basically you belong to them – having the ability to degrade networks at will means you have a noose around the neck of said country. Huawei was undercutting other vendors by 60+%, losing money hand over fist (and there was some awful sleight of hand on their financial report, which was picked up – go to their 202 financial report, pages 103-104 and see if you can pick out the problem – break down by division OR region, never by division AND region – impossible to audit, and check back in every previous year – its the same thing). They have never made any profits, its a joke. Read this:–and-the-us-is-pushing-hard-for-a-ban-there/2019/05/28/582a8ff6-78d4-11e9-b7ae-390de4259661_story.html
      That was happening everywhere. I have worked in several operators who swapped to Huawei, am senior enough to have seen the deals and know full well just how much they undercut the next bid by – 30% or more, often lots more. Are they that much more efficient than other vendors? No – Ericsson and Nokia much of their respective engineering base in India, which is lower cost than China.
      This was about one thing and one thing only – bankrupting the competition and taking over, all funded by the CCP. And boy did we only see it at the last second.

  3. Avatar Rozaino Sarbini 17/06/2021 @ 11:41 pm

    Huawei owns most of IPR on 5G Technology. Meaning, Huawei sets the Global Standard to 5G Technology… Once huawei monetize those IPR, buy European (Nokia/Ericsson) or you buy American (¿¿¿), royalty $$$ goes to China (Huawei, ZTE). ?

    • Avatar Cletus the Clown 18/06/2021 @ 3:43 pm

      Umm, no they don’t.

  4. Avatar happiman 18/06/2021 @ 12:23 am

    Two worst of the worsts produced Huawei :Chinese culture and Communism.
    Deep inside Chinse DNA, “cheating” is the most dominant factor that shapes how they think and behave.

    What makes online cheating so prevalent in China?
    With the news coming out from PUBG’s anti-cheat company that 99% “Majority” of their banned accounts are from China, it made me wonder, why China?

    • Avatar Jerome 18/06/2021 @ 2:56 am

      Whenever there is a article talking about China and hwawei in this forum you showed up every time sending exactly same message to sabotage them, are you a humanbeing or just a BOT.

    • Avatar Cletus the Clown 18/06/2021 @ 3:48 pm

      Say what you like about the CCP, but don’t bring the Chinese people into this. They are not the bad guys, and they are not the CCP either, despite the CCPs protests otherwise.
      The people of China are actually a pretty good bunch.

  5. Avatar Jim 18/06/2021 @ 3:39 am

    Huawei got arrogance recently. Also their competitive strength is vendor financing and hence those wireless service providers who needed a boast in their financial performance a helping hand from China’s Import/Export banks. Those we have strong balance sheets and access to capital were less prone to buy from Huawei because they are a bit short on good documentations, etc…Vendor selection is a lot less political than what some media has led readers to believe.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.