By Q1 2026, the more useful question for buyers is no longer whether Europe\u2019s e-bike market rebounded in mid-2024, but whether the inventory reset has actually translated into healthier ordering, pricing, and sell-through conditions. Public data suggests the market stabilized in 2025 rather than fully recovered, while early 2026 company results still point to uneven demand and continued pricing pressure. This article traces the full arc from Q2 2024’s inventory correction through today’s signals, and what buyers should actually do with the information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After the inventory correction phase that began in 2023\u20132024, the European e-bike market entered 2025 with volume showing early signs of leveling rather than resuming growth. The EU imported approximately 605,000 e-bikes for the full year 2025, a decline of roughly 4% from the prior year, according to Bike Europe reporting. That is a meaningful figure\u2014but the direction matters less than what it implies: the market found a floor, not a launchpad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
China returned to position as the EU’s leading e-bike supplier by volume in 2025 (see our analysis of China’s leading e-bike supply chain<\/a>), regaining the top spot after a period of geographic diversification among buyers. This has implications for pricing dynamics, supplier concentration risk, and the mix of components entering European channels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Germany\u2014Europe’s largest single national market\u2014e-bike sales totaled approximately 2 million units in 2025, a modest decline of 4.8% from 2024, according to ZIV (Die Fahrradindustrie) data<\/a>. On the surface, demand did not collapse. But the financial picture tells a harder story: total German bicycle and e-bike sales revenue fell 7.7% year-on-year, driven by both lower unit volumes and a reduction in average selling price. The e-bike average selling price in Germany moved from \u20ac2,650 in 2024 to \u20ac2,550 in 2025. That \u20ac100 shift matters for buyers setting channel pricing expectations, because it suggests the pressure on manufacturer and distributor margins was not limited to the clearance phase\u2014it persisted into what should have been a stabilization period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The conclusion entering 2026 is straightforward but important: the market is not in a strong recovery. It is in a phase where volume has found a lower floor, and pricing remains under pressure despite the inventory correction narrative. Buyers who assume a clean return to pre-2023 pricing conditions are likely working with the wrong model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q1 2026 is where the story becomes most relevant for current buyers, because the monthly company data released so far this year is more current than any headline import statistic. And the signal it sends is decidedly mixed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Giant Group’s official disclosures for 2025 provide one anchor point<\/a>. The company’s OEM business\u2014serving other brands that resell under their own names\u2014grew as a share of total revenue, rising from 26% to 33% in 2025. More importantly, Giant’s management stated publicly that OEM customer inventory adjustments were approaching completion<\/a>. That is a meaningful signal: the destocking that has suppressed order flow for more than a year may finally be working its way through the channel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the monthly revenue data for early 2026 complicates that picture. Giant’s revenue in January 2026 declined 21.6% year-on-year; February declined 40.0%; March declined 17.0%. These are not the numbers of a market in healthy recovery. Even if inventory adjustment is technically complete, the demand side has not responded accordingly. Sell-through from dealers to end consumers appears to remain subdued, which means reordering has not accelerated to the degree that would signal a clean recovery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Merida’s data points in the same direction from a different angle. The company’s full-year 2025 revenue declined 9.7% year-on-year, and Bike Europe reporting in March 2026<\/a> noted that early 2026 pressure at Merida reflected wider market conditions rather than company-specific problems. When two of the three largest e-bike manufacturers by volume are both reporting continued revenue contraction in early 2026, the honest reading is that the inventory cycle has moved past its worst phase, but demand has not yet re-engaged at the pace a true recovery would require.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One commercially significant detail from the Giant data is the rising OEM share itself. As own-brand sales remain under pressure, more of Giant’s revenue is coming from serving other brands\u2014that is, from the OEM channel that ClipClop’s buyers are themselves operating in. This suggests OEM demand may be stabilizing from the supply side even as retail demand remains soft. For buyers evaluating whether to place orders now or wait, that distinction matters: the floor may be closer for OEM flow than for consumer-facing brand activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q2 2024 still matters because it marked a visible turning point in import behavior, but 2025 and early 2026 show that the turn was toward stabilization, not a clean return to pricing power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Q2 2024, EU e-bike imports reached 223,000 units, up from 125,000 in Q1\u2014a sharp sequential rebound that looked, at the time, like the beginning of a recovery. Import value rose as well, but not proportionally: volume grew 78% quarter-over-quarter while value grew only 52%. That gap between volume and value was the first signal that the rebound was being driven in part by lower-priced shipments rather than by broad pricing strength. Taiwan-origin average unit prices fell from \u20ac1,625 in Q1 to \u20ac877 by June 2024, a decline of 46% in a single quarter\u2014a pattern consistent with aggressive inventory clearing rather than sustainable pricing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The subsequent data from 2025 and Q1 2026 validates that reading. EU full-year 2025 imports were still below 2023 levels. Giant’s own-brand revenue remained under pressure even as it reported OEM stabilization. Merida’s 2025 revenue fell. If Q2 2024 had truly signaled a new growth phase, those outcomes would not be consistent with the trajectory we are now observing. The more accurate reading\u2014and the one that holds up against subsequent data\u2014is that Q2 2024 was a restocking bounce in a correction that was still in progress, not a clean recovery (for more on EU sourcing context, see our 2026 Ghana e-bike sourcing guide<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Buyers who read Q2 2024 as a green light and ordered aggressively into that bounce would, in most cases, have found themselves holding elevated inventory at prices that were still adjusting downward through 2025. That is the specific risk this background is meant to illustrate\u2014and to help buyers avoid repeating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The practical question for 2026 is not whether the market has recovered\u2014it has not\u2014but how to make good sourcing decisions within a correction that may be closer to its end than its beginning. Three specific shifts in approach are supported by the data described above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Do not mistake OEM stabilization for retail pricing recovery.<\/strong> Giant’s management says OEM inventory adjustment is nearly complete, and the rising OEM revenue share at Giant confirms the OEM channel is reordering. But the monthly revenue declines show that end-demand has not followed suit. Buyers should treat these as two separate signals: the supply side is stabilizing, but the retail channel is not yet generating the pull that would justify aggressive volume increases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. Reassess landed cost assumptions against 2025 price reality, not 2024 peaks.<\/strong> German e-bike average selling prices fell from \u20ac2,650 to \u20ac2,550. If buyers are setting channel pricing or negotiating new OEM terms based on a 2023\u20132024 reference point, they are likely building in margins that the market will not support. EU full-year 2025 import volumes also confirm the market did not experience a meaningful demand-led price correction\u2014it was volume stabilization under continued pricing pressure. Reorder decisions should be evaluated against current market conditions, not the expectation of a quick return to earlier pricing norms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. Break down procurement signals by channel, not just aggregate volume.<\/strong> Import volume, brand revenue, and dealer sell-through data can tell different stories at the same time. The most useful framework for 2026 is to track three indicators separately: OEM order flow (for supply-side timing), dealer inventory and markdown intensity (for channel health), and country-level retail pricing (for market-specific positioning). Acting on aggregated headline data without separating these layers is what leads to the ordering mistakes that followed Q2 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q: What does Q1 2026 suggest about Europe’s e-bike pricing environment?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The monthly company data from Giant and Merida, combined with German retail pricing trends, points to a market where pricing pressure has not fully resolved even as the inventory correction phase is technically complete. For buyers, this means pricing conditions are more favorable than they were at peak 2023\u20132024 levels, but not yet healthy enough to support the margin expansion that would accompany a genuine demand-led recovery. The practical implication is that buyers who can act on selective opportunities\u2014particularly in the OEM channel where stabilization is most visible (see also our Cambodia e-bike export analysis<\/a> for current supplier dynamics)\u2014may find better entry points now than they will once demand actually re-engages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q: Has the inventory reset actually ended for OEM buyers?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The most current evidence is that the inventory reset is approaching completion on the supply side but has not yet translated into improved demand conditions at retail. Giant’s management explicitly stated OEM customer inventory adjustment is nearly done, which is a meaningful signal for buyers sourcing through OEM arrangements. But the continued revenue declines in early 2026 mean buyers should not assume the channel is now healthy\u2014they should evaluate reorder timing based on their own inventory positions and channel feedback, not on the narrative of a completed correction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q: Why can OEM stabilization coexist with weak own-brand performance?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n OEM stabilization and own-brand weakness can coexist because they operate at different points in the supply chain and reflect different competitive dynamics. When Giant’s OEM business grows as a share of total revenue, it means the company is generating more of its income from serving other brands than from its own retail brand. This can happen while own-brand revenue declines if the own-brand business faces more direct retail competition and pricing pressure. For buyers, this pattern is significant: it means OEM relationships may offer more stable demand signals than own-brand channels, even when both are under the same manufacturer’s umbrella.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Q: Which indicators matter more than import volume in 2026?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Three indicators are more useful than aggregate import volume in 2026: monthly manufacturer revenue (Giant publishes this monthly and it is publicly available), dealer sell-through and inventory reports from brand-level disclosures, and country-level average selling price data where available. Import volume tells you how much entered the channel; these three indicators tell you whether the channel is actually moving that inventory through to end consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat Q1 2026 Is Already Signaling<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Background: What Q2 2024 Revealed During the Inventory Reset<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What Buyers Should Do in 2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ofte stillede sp\u00f8rgsm\u00e5l<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Sources and Methodology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n