Southeast Asia has moved from the margins of global corporate strategy to its centre. Foreign direct investment into the region crossed USD 230 billion in 2023, according to UN estimates, even as inflows into China slowed and global capital became more selective. Multinational companies are no longer scouring for a single Asian base. They are breaking operations apart, separating where they manufacture from where they manage risk, capital, and compliance.
In that reordering, incorporating a business in Singapore vs Vietnam has emerged as one of the most closely watched strategic considerations for global companies. One has built an economy around legal certainty, financial depth, and institutional trust. The other has absorbed factories, labour, and export demand at a scale few countries can match. By 2026, understanding how these roles diverge has become more important than deciding which country is “better”.
Which Is the Best Place to Do Business in 2026?
The five-year period has witnessed an increasing absorption of worldwide capital that previously automatically channelled into China. Problems associated with geopolitical risk, supply chain disruptions, and labour costs have made firms consider not only where they should locate their manufacturing facilities but also where they should locate their own decision-making centres.
Within this new distribution, Singapore and Vietnam have proven to be the most commonly paired locations for comparison. This comparison is, however, not helpful. They are no longer addressing the same problem for firms. The difference between their roles is set to widen instead of being bridged by 2026.
Is Singapore Still the Region’s Most Reliable Business Base?
In the year 2026, business incorporation in Singapore is less about growth and more about influence. The amount of inward foreign direct investment stock that Singapore has absorbed, rising above USD 1.8 trillion, indicates that the country is a legal and financial hub.
Most of this amount is currently held in holding firms, treasury operations, and regional headquarters set up for the purpose of managing risk in Asia as a whole. Its system of law is based on the English common law system, and its incorruptibility in the enforcement of contracts is behind Singapore’s popularity as an arbitration point at a time when certainty of regulatory regimes is not assured.
A system built for predictability
The key to Singapore’s economic success has never been its growth rates or its population numbers. It is the quiet success of institutions that never hit the headlines because they are always doing the right thing. It has the courts that uphold contracts, regulators who publish crystal-clear rules, and policy transitions that are foreseen years in advance. Singapore is among the highest-ranked countries for regulatory quality and rule of law, according to the World Bank Governance Indicators.
This predictability becomes even more important in uncertain environments. As the world deals with trade barriers, sanctions, and international tax rules, Singapore provides a haven where legal risk is no longer arbitrary but rather measurable. It has established itself as a default hub for the regional headquarters of companies, treasuries, and dispute resolutions even where the actual operational activities take place.
Tax structure without volatility
Firstly, Singapore’s headline effective corporate tax rate continues to be pegged at 17 percent, though the significant aspect here would be that of continuity. Incentives related to actual activities such as intellectual property development, fund management, and green finance business activities would see a progressive slight adjustment to fit within global minimum rates of taxes. This would be beneficial for multinationals to avoid abrupt changes in such policies.
A workforce designed for control, not scale
With GDP per capita exceeding USD 80,000, Singapore’s workforce is expensive by regional standards. But productivity is high, and turnover is low. The city-state works best for businesses that value coordination, compliance, and speed of execution over labour-intensive expansion. Manufacturing at scale has largely moved on.
Why Has Vietnam Become Central to Global Manufacturing Plans?
Vietnam’s rise has been in line with the movement of international supply chains rather than the growth of domestic consumers. While production migrated out of China, Vietnam has shown a remarkable ability to accommodate export-oriented production. By 2024, exports had attained a level of around USD 370 billion, with increasing electronics exports. The managers involved in factory relocation highlight technical issues like labour factors, logistics, and presence in major trade agreements. The change that is taking place now is in terms of novelty increasing in terms of investment, moving from final manufacturing to components.
The spillover from China
Vietnam’s economic transformation is closely tied to shifts in global supply chains. Since 2018, exports have expanded rapidly, reaching roughly USD 370 billion by 2024. Electronics, machinery, garments, and furniture control the mix, showing Vietnam’s role as a manufacturing alternative rather than a consumption-led economy.
Multinationals moving or extending production have been drawn by Vietnam’s combination of cost advantages and trade access. Participation in multiple free trade agreements has allowed Vietnam-based manufacturers to reach markets in North America, Europe, and Asia with minimal tariff barriers than many competitors.
Labour depth and demographics
Vietnam’s population of about 100 million remains relatively young, with a median age under the mid-30s. Manufacturing wages are a fraction of those in Singapore and remain competitive even compared to parts of southern China. This demographic profile allows companies to expand headcount without immediate wage pressure, an increasingly rare advantage in Asia.
Industrial policy with limits
Foreign direct investment continues to play a central role in Vietnam’s growth strategy, with annual inflows exceeding USD 30 billion in recent years. Industrial parks and export zones have proliferated, particularly around Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. At the same time, uneven enforcement of regulations across provinces remains a challenge, requiring firms to invest heavily in local compliance capacity.
How Do the Regulatory Realities Differ on the Ground?
Differences between Singapore and Vietnam are most evident in terms of operational administration. The administrative regime for Singapore is concluded, such that once the necessary approvals have been obtained, these are not likely to change. By the same token, this has higher entry barriers, although there are fewer surprise elements. The structure for Vietnam is quite decentralised, such that while country-level policies dictate policy, provincial policies determine implementation. This creates inconsistencies that companies learn to live with over time.
Centralised precision in Singapore
Singapore’s regulatory system is notable for its uniformity. Rules are applied consistently across sectors, and administrative processes are increasingly digital. Licenses, filings, and approvals follow predictable timelines. For companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, Singapore often functions as a neutral base where contracts are governed and disputes resolved.
This precision leaves little room for informal adjustment, but that is precisely what many firms prefer.
Fragmentation in Vietnam
Vietnam’s regulatory environment has improved, but it remains more fragmented. National policies are often pro-investment, yet interpretation varies at the provincial level. Differences in land-use approvals, labour inspections, and environmental standards can slow projects unexpectedly. Businesses that succeed in Vietnam tend to be those that treat regulatory navigation as an ongoing operational function rather than a one-time hurdle.
Flexibility versus certainty
Singapore prioritises certainty, even at the cost of flexibility. Vietnam offers flexibility, but at the cost of predictability. Each rewards a different type of management discipline.
What Do Costs and Returns Actually Look Like in Singapore and Vietnam by 2026?
Singapore and Vietnam signal their priorities through costs. Singapore remains among the world’s most expensive locations for office space and skilled labour, but those expenses buy reliability. Infrastructure interruptions are rare, capital moves with ease, and financial services support complex regional needs. Vietnam offers lower wages and land costs, especially beyond its largest cities, enabling production at scale with thinner margins. The trade-off is variability. Logistics delays, uneven infrastructure, and administrative bottlenecks can narrow expected savings. For many firms, the choice turns on how much uncertainty they are willing to absorb.
Singapore’s high-cost equilibrium
Office rents, skilled labour, and professional services in Singapore are among the most expensive in Asia. Yet infrastructure reliability, financial depth, and currency stability reduce indirect costs. Capital moves freely. Banking systems are sophisticated. Logistics function with minimal disruption.
For businesses operating on thin margins, Singapore is prohibitive. For businesses where mistakes are costly, it can be efficient.
Vietnam’s cost advantage with caveats
Vietnam offers lower costs for labour, land, and utilities, particularly outside major urban centres. These advantages support large-scale manufacturing and export-oriented operations. However, logistics bottlenecks, power reliability in certain regions, and administrative delays can erode expected savings. Infrastructure investment is ongoing, but gaps remain.
Risk-adjusted decision-making
Singapore delivers lower growth with high certainty. Vietnam offers higher growth with execution risk. By 2026, this trade-off is unlikely to disappear.
Which Businesses Clearly Belong in Each Country?
Singapore has narrowed its focus to activities that depend on coordination rather than output. Finance, asset management, intellectual property licensing, and regional management dominate, reinforced by a regulatory environment built for oversight. Vietnam’s strengths remain tied to production. Electronics, textiles, footwear, and consumer goods aimed at Southeast Asia’s growing middle class anchor its industrial base. These patterns reflect policy choices. Singapore invests in talent and regulation. Vietnam invests in capacity and exports.
Singapore’s role as a regional anchor
Singapore favours asset-light, decision-heavy businesses. Regional headquarters, investment funds, technology licensing entities, and professional services firms benefit most from its ecosystem. It is less suitable for large workforces or cost-sensitive production.
Vietnam’s role as an expansion platform
Vietnam is well suited for manufacturers, exporters, and consumer brands targeting Southeast Asia’s mass market. Rising domestic consumption adds a second layer of opportunity beyond exports. Firms that commit long-term and build local capability tend to outperform those seeking quick wins.
A shared strategy, not a rivalry
Increasingly, companies structure operations across both countries, using Singapore for governance and Vietnam for execution. This reflects complementarity rather than competition.
Which Country Is Better for Business in 2026?
By 2026, treating Singapore and Vietnam as substitutes misses how multinational firms actually organise themselves. Governance, finance, and legal oversight are anchored where institutions are strongest, while production and expansion follow labor and scale. In that arrangement, Singapore and Vietnam serve different purposes within the same strategy.
Framing the choice as Singapore versus Vietnam misses the larger shift underway. Global business is no longer organised around single hubs. It is organised around networks of specialisation.
Singapore offers institutional trust, legal clarity, and financial sophistication for sustainable business strategies in Singapore for long-term success. Vietnam offers scale, labor depth, and growth momentum. Each solves a different constraint.
By 2026, the most resilient business strategies in Southeast Asia are likely to rely on both. Together, they reflect the region’s evolving role in a more fragmented global economy.
Conclusion
For clients advised by 3E Accounting, the distinction between Singapore and Vietnam is rarely theoretical. It shows up in where contracts are governed, where capital is parked, and where operations can scale. Singapore continues to function as a base for legal certainty and financial control.
Vietnam increasingly absorbs production and growth. The role of advisory, then, is not to push one jurisdiction over the other, but to help businesses align structure with reality as regional strategies become more fragmented and deliberate.
Plan Your Asia Business Strategy for 2026
Get practical guidance on structuring operations across Singapore and Vietnam, aligned with regulatory realities, cost pressures, and long-term growth goals.
Frequently Asked Questions
The decision is typically driven by function rather than preference. Singapore is chosen when legal certainty, financial control, and cross-border governance matter most. Vietnam is considered when scale, labor availability, and export capacity are the priority. Many firms now separate these functions instead of forcing them into one jurisdiction.
Yes. Singapore’s role has shifted toward hosting headquarters, holding structures, and regional management rather than factories. Its appeal lies in contract enforcement, dispute resolution, and access to financial services. For businesses managing activity across multiple Asian markets, those attributes remain central.
Vietnam offers cost and scale advantages, but execution risks remain. Regulatory interpretation can vary across provinces, and infrastructure quality is uneven outside major corridors. Companies that plan for these differences and invest in local compliance tend to perform better over time.
Labor and land remain cheaper than in developed hubs, but costs have risen in key industrial zones. The advantage today is more location-specific than universal. Savings are strongest where firms can align production with infrastructure and workforce availability.
Because each solves a different constraint. Singapore provides stability and control; Vietnam provides growth capacity. Using both allows firms to reduce concentration risk while aligning structure with how modern regional businesses actually operate.
Abigail Yu
Author
Abigail Yu oversees executive leadership at 3E Accounting Group, leading operations, IT solutions, public relations, and digital marketing to drive business success. She holds an honors degree in Communication and New Media from the National University of Singapore and is highly skilled in crisis management, financial communication, and corporate communications.
