With Nanjing reporting its first-half economic data, the “midterm report cards” for China’s top 10 cities by GDP are now fully in. While the overall ranking remained stable, the divergence in growth rates and the shift in industrial momentum have reached an unprecedented intensity. Shenzhen and Guangzhou tied for the fastest growth among the top 10 at 5.8%, while Chongqing—a massive direct-controlled municipality—ranked last at 4.2%, making it the only city to underperform the national average of 4.7%.
In terms of total output, the first tier—Shanghai (2.79 trillion yuan) and Beijing (2.64 trillion yuan)—continued to widen their lead over other cities with economies exceeding 2.6 trillion yuan. Shenzhen (1.98 trillion yuan), Chongqing (1.67 trillion yuan), and Guangzhou (1.60 trillion yuan) formed the second tier. Suzhou, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Wuhan, and Nanjing remained firmly in the trillion-yuan third tier. Although the rankings held steady, the gap between Chongqing and Guangzhou in the contest for “fourth-largest city” has narrowed dramatically from over 170 billion yuan (approximately $25.1 billion) last year to approximately 65.7 billion yuan (approximately $9.7 billion), leaving the second-half ranking highly uncertain.
Guangzhou and Shenzhen: Industrial Recovery and Trade Surge
Guangzhou was undoubtedly the standout performer in this report. After several years of subdued growth, Guangzhou’s 5.8% first-half expansion marked its fastest semi-annual pace since 2022, rebounding sharply by 2 percentage points from the same period last year. The core driver of this recovery was a revival in industry. In the first half, Guangzhou’s industrial output above designated size grew 6.6% year-on-year. Its three pillar industries, which account for nearly half of that output, all gained momentum: automobile manufacturing rose 9.1%, electronics manufacturing increased 11.2%, and petrochemical manufacturing grew 5.2%. This stands in stark contrast to the consecutive declines in automobile manufacturing over the previous two years.
More critically, Guangzhou’s transition from old to new growth drivers is beginning to show results. Data indicates that NEV production surged 53.2%, driving a 53.9% increase in automotive lithium-ion power battery output and a 40.6% rise in the value-added of intelligent vehicle equipment manufacturing. Meanwhile, the value-added of biopharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing grew 21.9% and 17.3%, respectively, while output of analog chips, displays, and service robots all achieved double-digit growth. Wu Sa, director of the Guangzhou Municipal Development and Reform Commission, disclosed that high-tech manufacturing investment now accounts for over 50% of total manufacturing investment, with industrial technological transformation investment nearing 40% of industrial investment.
If Guangzhou represents a “bottoming-out rebound,” Shenzhen demonstrated a dual-engine model of industrial explosion and foreign trade surge. In the first half, Shenzhen’s industrial output above designated size grew 8.7% year-on-year, with manufacturing alone surging 9.3%. The Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Statistics even stated bluntly on its official WeChat account: “It is no exaggeration to say that AI computing infrastructure construction has been the main engine driving Shenzhen’s industrial growth this year.” Driven by demand for AI large-model training and inference, the computer, communications, and other electronic equipment manufacturing sector, general and special-purpose equipment manufacturing, and the electricity and heat production and supply sector grew by 12.3%, 13.2%, 12.8%, and 11.5%, respectively, contributing over 90% of Shenzhen’s industrial growth above designated size.
This manufacturing strength also directly translated into foreign trade performance. In the first half, Shenzhen’s total import and export value reached 2.88 trillion yuan (approximately $425.5 billion), surging 33.0% year-on-year—far exceeding the national average of 16.9%. Among this, high-tech product exports grew 26.4%, demonstrating strong international competitiveness.
Chengdu and Chongqing: The Growing Pains of Industrial Transition
Unlike the rapid advances of Guangzhou and Shenzhen, the Chengdu-Chongqing duo is experiencing the growing pains of industrial transition. Chongqing’s secondary sector value-added grew only 2.2% in the first half, with industrial output above designated size rising 4.1%—a 1.6 percentage point decline from the full-year rate last year. For an industrial powerhouse that reclaimed the title of “China’s top auto city” last year, Chongqing’s automobile sector value-added grew just 3.4%, with first-half vehicle production falling by over 100,000 units, a decline of 9%.
The data reveals deeper concerns: although Chongqing’s NEV output edged up about 4% to 508,700 units, its traditional internal combustion engine vehicle production plummeted 17.7%. This clearly indicates that the contraction of traditional auto capacity has not yet been fully offset by the new energy transition, and the handover between old and new growth drivers still requires time. Chengdu’s auto industry is similarly under pressure, with first-half vehicle production falling 21.3% and NEV output dipping 0.7%.
However, both cities are not standing still in cultivating new growth drivers. Chengdu’s special-purpose equipment manufacturing grew 26.0%, computer and communications equipment manufacturing rose 11.1%, and high-tech manufacturing value-added above designated size increased 12.4%. Chongqing’s emerging products also showed strong momentum, with integrated circuit wafer production up 20.4%, lithium-ion battery output surging 63.2%, and the intelligent equipment and intelligent manufacturing industry cluster value-added growing 10.5%.
Leading Cities: The “Ballast” Effect of Services
For Shanghai and Beijing, modern services constitute their deepest moat. Shanghai’s first-half GDP grew 5.6%, with financial sector value-added reaching 496.42 billion yuan (approximately $73.4 billion), up 10.2% year-on-year—the core incremental driver of economic growth. Trading volume across the city’s major financial markets reached 2,269.16 trillion yuan, a 24.1% year-on-year increase. Beijing’s situation is similar: information transmission, software, and IT services, together with financial services, account for roughly half of the service sector’s value-added, growing 9.4% and 10.2%, respectively, strongly propelling the overall economy.
In the third tier, Wuhan’s performance was particularly notable. In the first half, Wuhan’s GDP reached 1.12 trillion yuan (approximately $166.1 billion), growing 5.7% year-on-year—a record high for the same period in the past five years. Even more noteworthy is the structural shift: high-tech manufacturing accounted for 38.4% of industrial output above designated size, surpassing the combined total of traditional industries like automobiles and steel for the first time. Driven by data center expansion demand amid the AI boom, Wuhan’s computer, communications, and other electronic equipment manufacturing sector skyrocketed 90.8%, contributing 100.4% to the city’s industrial growth above designated size. Chen Tao, deputy director of the Hubei Provincial Strategic Planning Center, commented: “Wuhan’s industrial growth momentum has undergone a fundamental transformation.”
Suzhou is likewise a textbook example of “AI plus manufacturing.” In the first half, Suzhou’s industrial output above designated size grew 9.3%, with high-tech industries accounting for 57.5% of total output. Production of industrial automatic regulating instruments and control systems, as well as industrial robots, surged 73.7% and 41.3%, respectively.
Looking across this midyear report, the logic behind city rankings has undergone a profound shift. The era of ranking cities purely by economic size is passing; the speed of transitioning from old to new growth drivers has become the core variable determining urban competitiveness. Whether it is Guangzhou’s bottoming-out rebound, Shenzhen’s AI computing-driven expansion, or the transition pains endured by Chongqing, all point to the same reality: in the race for “new quality productive forces,” those who can first reshape their industrial structure will seize the initiative in the next round of urban competition.