Ukraine’s foreign trade in goods in January–August 2026 was characterized by imports significantly exceeding exports and the concentration of the negative trade balance in relations with several of its largest partners. According to calculations based on the table “Ukraine’s Foreign Trade with Selected Countries” as of August 31, total trade turnover amounted to $92.95 billion, imports to $66.25 billion, and exports to $26.70 billion. The negative balance reached $39.55 billion, while imports exceeded exports by a factor of 2.48.
Exports covered only 40.3% of the value of imported goods. China was the largest individual trading partner and supplier, Poland was the main market for Ukrainian products, and the European Union as a whole accounted for 59.1% of Ukraine’s merchandise exports. Meanwhile, the largest positive trade balances were recorded in trade with Moldova, Spain, and Egypt.
“For every hundred dollars of merchandise imports, there were approximately forty dollars of merchandise exports. This ratio demonstrates the limited ability of the export sector to balance the economy’s demand for foreign products. Some imports support production and reconstruction, so they must be assessed with regard to the purpose of the goods. To improve the balance in the long term, the equipment purchased must help increase the output of competitive products in Ukraine,” said Maksym Urakin, PhD in Economics and founder of the Experts Club information and analytical center.
Ukraine recorded its largest trade turnover with China at $20.56 billion, or 22.1% of the total. Poland ranked second with $9.54 billion, followed by Germany with $6.10 billion. Ukraine had almost the same volume of trade with Turkey, at $6.08 billion, with the difference compared with Germany amounting to just $20.9 million. The United States completed the top five partners with $3.91 billion.
These five countries accounted for 49.7% of trade turnover, while the ten largest partners accounted for 63.4%. Thus, trade results with a relatively small group of countries largely determined Ukraine’s overall foreign trade balance.
Ukraine’s Ten Largest Trading Partners by Trade Turnover in January–August 2026, USD Billion
| Country | Imports | Exports | Balance | Trade Turnover |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 19.639 | 0.924 | −18.715 | 20.563 |
| Poland | 6.277 | 3.261 | −3.016 | 9.538 |
| Germany | 4.377 | 1.726 | −2.651 | 6.104 |
| Turkey | 3.991 | 2.092 | −1.899 | 6.083 |
| United States | 3.210 | 0.700 | −2.510 | 3.910 |
| Italy | 1.834 | 1.519 | −0.315 | 3.353 |
| Netherlands | 1.151 | 1.311 | +0.160 | 2.462 |
| Hungary | 1.549 | 0.846 | −0.703 | 2.394 |
| Czech Republic | 1.670 | 0.705 | −0.965 | 2.375 |
| Slovakia | 1.343 | 0.792 | −0.551 | 2.135 |
Source: State Customs Service of Ukraine
The next largest partners included Romania, with trade turnover of $2.05 billion, Spain with $1.98 billion, Lithuania with $1.80 billion, France with $1.77 billion, and Greece with $1.52 billion. Total trade turnover with the 27 EU member states amounted to $43.60 billion, or 46.9% of the overall figure. Ukrainian exports to the EU totaled $15.78 billion, imports reached $27.81 billion, and the deficit amounted to $12.03 billion.
The EU’s high share of exports means that access to the European market is of decisive importance for Ukrainian producers. At the same time, substantial purchases from EU countries constitute a separate source of the trade deficit. The situation within this trade relationship is uneven: the largest gaps are recorded with Poland and Germany, while Ukraine has positive trade balances with Spain and the Netherlands.
China supplied $19.64 billion worth of imports, or 29.6% of total merchandise imports. Supplies from Poland amounted to $6.28 billion, or 9.5%, while those from Germany reached $4.38 billion, or 6.6%. Together, these three countries accounted for 45.7% of Ukraine’s merchandise imports.
The five largest suppliers also included Turkey with $3.99 billion and the United States with $3.21 billion. The combined share of the top five reached 56.6%, while the ten largest suppliers accounted for 68.3%. Other major sources of imports included Italy with $1.83 billion, the Czech Republic with $1.67 billion, Hungary with $1.55 billion, and Slovakia and Lithuania with approximately $1.34 billion each.
The State Customs Service provides a breakdown of the overall commodity structure for the same period. In January–August 2026, Ukraine imported machinery, equipment, and transport vehicles worth more than $29.9 billion, fuel and energy products worth more than $9.5 billion, and chemical industry products worth more than $9 billion. These categories accounted for more than 73% of imports; machinery, equipment, and transport represented approximately 45%.
This ratio indicates the significant role of industrial and energy products in imports. However, the broad category of machinery and transport includes goods intended for different purposes. Its entire value cannot be interpreted as investment in production: doing so would require separate analysis of industrial equipment, components, vehicles, and final consumer goods.
“The concentration of almost one-third of imports with a single supplier makes Ukrainian businesses sensitive to supply conditions from China. Logistics disruptions or changes in component prices may affect many enterprises simultaneously. At the same time, reducing purchases without affordable alternatives could constrain Ukrainian production itself. The practical task is to diversify suppliers and develop domestic production of goods for which Ukraine has the economic and technological prerequisites,” Urakin commented.
Poland remained the largest export market, receiving goods worth $3.26 billion, or 12.2% of Ukraine’s total exports. Turkey ranked second with $2.09 billion and a share of 7.8%, followed by Germany with $1.73 billion and 6.5%. Italy followed with $1.52 billion, the Netherlands with $1.31 billion, and Spain with $1.29 billion.
Exports to China amounted to $924.2 million, Romania to $878.0 million, Hungary to $845.6 million, and Slovakia to $792.4 million. Egypt and Moldova purchased Ukrainian goods worth $751.0 million and $750.5 million, respectively. Supplies to the Czech Republic amounted to $705.2 million, while exports to the United States reached $700.0 million.
Exports were less concentrated among individual countries than imports: the three largest markets accounted for 26.5% of shipments, the top five for 37.1%, and the top ten for 54.8%. At the same time, the EU’s dominance as a combined market means that the diversity of destination countries only partially reduces dependence on the economic and regulatory conditions they share.
According to the State Customs Service, food exports exceeded $15.4 billion over the eight months, exports of metals and metal products approached $2.7 billion, and exports of machinery, equipment, and transport approached $2.4 billion. The approximate shares of these groups in total exports were 58%, 10%, and 9%, respectively. Food products remained the main source of merchandise export revenue. [2]
“The geography of exports allows Ukraine to operate in different markets, but the commodity structure remains heavily dependent on food products. For such shipments, harvest volumes, global prices, and transportation costs are particularly important. The development of processing can increase revenue per unit of raw material, although it requires investment and a stable energy supply. At the same time, industrial exports must be expanded so that the performance of several agricultural commodity groups has less influence on the overall picture,” Maksym Urakin noted.
The largest bilateral deficit was recorded in trade with China at $18.71 billion. This was equivalent to 47.3% of Ukraine’s net merchandise trade deficit. Exports to China covered only 4.7% of imports from that country, while Chinese goods accounted for 95.5% of bilateral trade turnover.
The second-largest deficit was recorded with Poland at $3.02 billion. Germany followed with $2.65 billion, the United States with $2.51 billion, and Turkey with $1.90 billion. Together, the negative trade balance with these five countries amounted to $28.79 billion.
Significant deficits were also recorded in trade with Greece at $1.07 billion, the Czech Republic at $964.7 million, Lithuania at $864.6 million, France at $864.5 million, and Taiwan at $844.5 million. Thus, the imbalance extended far beyond relations with the single largest supplier.
The sum of negative trade balances across all deficit-producing trade relationships reached $43.90 billion. Positive balances totaling $4.35 billion in other rows of the table reduced this amount to an overall deficit of $39.55 billion. Accordingly, China accounted for 42.6% of the sum of bilateral deficits, while the five largest deficit-producing trade relationships accounted for 65.6%. This provides a more accurate picture of their concentration than comparing them solely with the net result after surpluses are taken into account.
“The deficit with China exceeds the combined negative trade balance with all EU countries. This illustrates how unevenly Ukraine’s dependence on imports is distributed. At the same time, a bilateral deficit in itself does not determine whether trade with a particular country is economically beneficial. It is necessary to assess how imported goods are used domestically and what contribution they make to employment, production, and future exports,” Urakin emphasized.
Ukraine recorded its largest positive trade balance with Moldova at $640.6 million. With exports of $750.5 million, imports from that country amounted to $109.9 million, meaning that Ukrainian supplies exceeded imports by almost 6.8 times. Spain ranked second in terms of the surplus, at $613.0 million: exports to Spain reached $1.29 billion, while imports amounted to $681.8 million.
The third-largest surplus was recorded with Egypt at $493.5 million. Algeria followed with $361.0 million, Lebanon with $258.7 million, and Libya with $219.8 million. The positive balance with Iraq amounted to $169.1 million, the Netherlands to $160.1 million, Tunisia to $157.0 million, and Yemen to $134.0 million.
The five largest surpluses – with Moldova, Spain, Egypt, Algeria, and Lebanon – totaled $2.37 billion, or 54.4% of all positive balances. However, surplus-generating trade relationships offset only 9.9% of the sum of bilateral deficits overall. Even successful export markets had not yet generated sufficient revenue to balance purchases from the largest suppliers.
“Moldova, Spain, and Egypt demonstrate that Ukraine has markets where its own supplies significantly exceed imports. These should be considered a basis for expanding product ranges and strengthening long-term relationships with buyers. However, a large surplus in an individual trade relationship does not necessarily mean it can be increased rapidly without demand constraints. To have a tangible impact on the overall balance, exports must increase simultaneously across many markets,” Maksym Urakin believes.
A detailed breakdown by commodity helps explain differences between trade relationships. Below, figures for January–August 2026 are supplemented with reference data for 2025 and other explicitly specified periods. Historical shares describe their respective periods and cannot automatically be applied to the first eight months of 2026.
According to GMK Center calculations based on State Customs Service data, Ukraine supplied 7 million tonnes of iron ore to China in January–August 2026, 38% less than a year earlier. This represented approximately 44% of Ukraine’s total iron ore exports by physical volume during the period, which amounted to 15.8 million tonnes. The Chinese market thus remained extremely important for the mining industry, although Ukraine’s total exports to China were much smaller than imports.
For its part, the National Institute for Strategic Studies noted in its review of 2025 that machinery, equipment, and transport accounted for 69.8% of Ukrainian imports from China. Comparing these data from different periods highlights the differences in the commodity profiles of bilateral trade: the major role of manufactured products in Chinese supplies is combined with the importance of raw materials in Ukrainian exports. The precise structure of this exchange during the first eight months of 2026 can only be determined through a complete breakdown of commodity categories.
In January–August 2026, Ukraine shipped 2.1 million tonnes of iron ore to Poland. For comparison, Slovakia received 2.9 million tonnes over the same period. These figures illustrate the role of both markets in sales of products from Ukraine’s mining industry.
A broader Polish commodity profile is contained in the Polish Ministry of Development and Technology’s response to parliamentary inquiry No. 17426, reproduced in the Politoskop database. According to the GUS data for 2025 cited there, major supplies from Ukraine to Poland included soybean oil worth €399.7 million, iron ores and concentrates worth €342.3 million, and rolled ferrous metal products worth €315.5 million. In the opposite direction, substantial volumes consisted of petroleum products worth €1.76 billion, unmanned aerial vehicles worth €759.6 million, and passenger cars worth €555.8 million. These figures come from Polish statistics for the full year 2025 and therefore serve as a separate description of the commodity composition of trade.
According to preliminary German official agricultural statistics for 2025, industrial goods accounted for approximately 94% of German supplies to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Germany imported agricultural and food products from Ukraine worth approximately €1.3 billion and industrial sector goods worth €1.8 billion. Agricultural supplies notably included oilseeds, primarily rapeseed, as well as vegetable oils worth €172 million and processed fruit products and preserved fruit worth €101 million. This structure indicates that Ukrainian exports to Germany also include a substantial industrial component.
According to the analysis by the National Institute for Strategic Studies, corn was an important item in Ukrainian exports to Turkey in 2025, with shipments worth approximately $1.2 billion. Among imports from Turkey, petroleum products accounted for $639 million, while the aggregated category of “other goods” amounted to $2.1 billion. Without further detail, it would be incorrect to associate the latter with any specific industry. Data for January–August 2026 also confirm the presence of metallurgical trade: according to GMK Center calculations, Ukraine exported 83,200 tonnes of pig iron to Turkey.
In January–August 2026, the United States purchased 900,600 tonnes of Ukrainian pig iron, while total exports of this product amounted to approximately 1.03 million tonnes. Thus, the US market accounted for approximately 87% of shipments by physical volume. Italy received 26,500 tonnes during the same period. Sales of an individual commodity may be much more concentrated in one market than Ukraine’s total exports across countries.
Data from the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy, citing the State Customs Service, demonstrate the importance of the Spanish, Italian, and Indian markets for the vegetable oil industry. In the first half of 2025, Spain purchased Ukrainian sunflower oil worth $356.9 million, Italy purchased $337.5 million, and India purchased $326.1 million. Their shares in the value of exports of this product were 12.88%, 12.18%, and 11.77%, respectively. This is an example of the specialization of individual markets in sales of Ukrainian processed agricultural products, not an estimate of their shares for January–August 2026.
The geographic and commodity data indicate a combination of high demand for imported industrial products with exports dominated by food products, while ore and metallurgical products play a substantial role in certain trade relationships. Given this structure, opportunities to improve the balance depend on production capacity, energy supply, accessible logistics, and conditions for entering foreign markets.
At the same time, the merchandise trade deficit is not equivalent to a deficit in the overall balance of payments or an automatic reduction in foreign exchange reserves by the same amount. External financing is also influenced by trade in services, income, transfers, and financial transactions. Therefore, the figure of $39.55 billion specifically characterizes the gap between merchandise exports and imports within the statistics presented.
“Improving the trade balance requires expanding the capacity of Ukrainian enterprises to produce goods and sell them abroad. Equipment purchases can contribute to this if they are accompanied by investment in production, access to energy, and clear operating conditions. Stable transportation and the ability to fulfill contracts without forced interruptions are equally important for exporters. It is the growth of competitive domestic production that can gradually narrow the gap between imports and exports,” Maksym Urakin concluded.
ECONOMY, EXPERTS CLUB, EXPORTS, FOREIGN TRADE, IMPORTS, TRADE DEFICIT, UKRAINE
Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, the Liberal Party candidate and son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, finished first in Brazil’s presidential election on October 4, 2026, receiving 47.03% of valid votes. Incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva secured 45.16%. A runoff election will take place on October 25, according to the Experts Club information and analytical center.
Bolsonaro received 56.10 million votes, compared with Lula’s 53.88 million, leaving a gap of approximately 2.22 million votes. Writer Augusto Cury finished third with 2.89%, followed by Renan Santos with 2.24% and Ronaldo Caiado with 2.18%. Approximately 119.3 million valid votes were cast.
The first-round results surprised most polling organizations, which had predicted either a narrow Lula lead or a statistical tie. Meanwhile, more than 33.4 million Brazilians, or 21.1% of registered voters, abstained from voting. This represented the highest first-round presidential election abstention rate since 1998.
Alexander Pozniy, director of the research company Active Group, said the results demonstrated the continuing political strength of Bolsonarism following Jair Bolsonaro’s departure.
“The first round showed that Bolsonarism in Brazil has not only survived Jair Bolsonaro’s departure but has also proved capable of transferring political capital to the next generation. Lula’s problem is that he has already mobilized a significant part of his traditional electorate, while Flávio Bolsonaro now has an opportunity to consolidate the votes of most candidates from the right-wing and center-right camps,” Pozniy said.
Bolsonaro’s position strengthened after Romeu Zema, Ronaldo Caiado and several right-wing parties announced their support. Meanwhile, nearly 9 million votes cast for eliminated candidates remain an important potential source of support in the runoff.
The parliamentary elections provided Bolsonaro with another advantage. The Liberal Party won 121 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and increased its representation in the Senate to 28 seats. Together with its allies, a potential Bolsonaro bloc could control approximately 259 seats in the lower house and 48 in the Senate.
“A gap of two million votes with more than 33 million people not turning out to vote means that the second round cannot be considered a foregone conclusion. But the candidates’ starting positions are not equal. Bolsonaro has already secured the support of several right-wing candidates and parties, while Lula will have to simultaneously mobilize his own base, attract moderate voters and reduce abstention,” Pozniy emphasized.
The geopolitical consequences of the election are also significant. Lula advocates Brazil’s strategic autonomy and maintaining balanced relations with the United States, China and BRICS. Bolsonaro favors closer political cooperation with US President Donald Trump’s administration while preserving economic ties with China.
For Ukraine, a change in Brazil’s administration could potentially lead to adjustments in the country’s diplomatic position on the Russia-Ukraine war. However, an automatic reversal of Brazilian foreign policy should not be assumed.
According to Experts Club, the runoff outcome will depend primarily on mobilizing voters who missed the first round, redistributing votes cast for eliminated candidates, public expectations regarding the economy and the cost of living, and Lula’s ability to overcome the political momentum Bolsonaro gained after October 4.
The second round is scheduled for October 25, 2026.
Brazil, India and Mexico recorded the world’s highest estimated numbers of deaths from interpersonal violence in 2023, while Russia ranked first in an expanded European sample both in absolute terms and per 100,000 population, reports the Experts Club information and analytical center, citing the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) Global Burden of Disease 2023 study.
According to IHME estimates, around 435,700 people worldwide died from interpersonal violence in 2023, equivalent to roughly 1,200 deaths per day. The global rate was about 5.4 deaths per 100,000 population. However, the figures are modeled mortality estimates and should not automatically be equated with intentional homicides officially recorded by police.
Brazil had the highest estimated absolute number at 52,229 deaths. It was followed by India with 44,288, Mexico with 36,445, the United States with 24,528 and South Africa with 23,066. Nigeria recorded an estimated 18,188 deaths, Russia 16,760, Colombia 15,959, Ethiopia 11,634 and Venezuela 11,583. Brazil, India and Mexico together accounted for approximately 30.5% of the global estimate, while Brazil alone represented about 12%.
The ranking changes considerably when deaths are measured per 100,000 people. Among sovereign states, El Salvador had the highest IHME estimate at 56.3 per 100,000, followed by Haiti at 49.5, Lesotho at 47.1, Venezuela at 45.1 and Eswatini at 43.8. Brazil ranked 18th with 24.6 deaths per 100,000.
Experts Club stressed that IHME estimates for some countries differ substantially from UNODC figures and national police statistics. The data should therefore be interpreted as modeled estimates of mortality from interpersonal violence rather than a straightforward ranking of officially registered crime.
In the expanded European sample used by Experts Club, which also includes Türkiye, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, Russia ranked first with 11.3 deaths per 100,000 population and an estimated 16,760 deaths. Ukraine ranked second at 7.4 per 100,000 and approximately 2,894 deaths. Ukraine’s figure does not include deaths caused by the war, as GBD classifies interpersonal violence separately from conflict and terrorism.
Poland became the largest gold buyer among the world’s central banks in January-August 2026, increasing its reserves by approximately 98 tonnes, according to an Experts Club analysis based on World Gold Council (WGC) data published on October 6.
In August, global central banks continued actively increasing their gold reserves, purchasing another 39 tonnes on a net basis compared with 23 tonnes a month earlier. However, the ranking of cumulative purchases since the beginning of the year differs noticeably from the results of August alone.
According to the WGC, the largest gold buyers in January-August 2026 included:
Poland – about 98 tonnes
China – about 80 tonnes
Uzbekistan – about 50 tonnes
Kazakhstan – about 36 tonnes
Czech Republic – about 14 tonnes
The National Bank of Poland retained first place thanks to the continuation of its large-scale precious metal accumulation programme. In August alone, the Polish central bank purchased another approximately 7.8 tonnes.
As a result, Poland’s gold holdings approached 648 tonnes, while the National Bank’s strategic target is 700 tonnes.
China ranks second. In August, the People’s Bank of China was the largest buyer in the world, increasing its reserves by as much as 20.2 tonnes.
In January-August, China purchased about 80 tonnes of gold, while its official gold reserves reached approximately 2,387 tonnes. Gold accounts for about 9% of the country’s international reserves.
At the same time, China has continued buying the precious metal for 22 consecutive months, making it one of the most consistent buyers among the world’s largest central banks.
Uzbekistan ranks third, having increased its gold reserves by approximately 50 tonnes since the beginning of the year. In August, the country purchased another approximately 7.8 tonnes. The total volume of gold in Uzbekistan’s reserves reached approximately 439 tonnes, with the precious metal accounting for about 90% of the country’s international reserves.
Kazakhstan ranks fourth, with purchases of approximately 36 tonnes over eight months. In August, the National Bank of Kazakhstan added about 7.4 tonnes, bringing its gold holdings to approximately 377 tonnes. Gold accounts for about 79% of the country’s international reserves.
The Czech Republic rounds out the top five largest buyers. The Czech National Bank purchased 14 tonnes since the beginning of the year, including approximately 1.7 tonnes in August. The country’s total gold reserves reached around 86 tonnes.
Notably, the Czech Republic has been increasing its gold holdings for 42 consecutive months, implementing one of the most consistent reserve expansion programmes among European central banks.
At the same time, Turkey and Russia became the largest gold sellers since the beginning of 2026. Turkey reduced its reserves by approximately 82 tonnes, although in August it returned to purchases and bought about 2.9 tonnes. Russia sold about 56 tonnes in January-August, including approximately 6.2 tonnes in August.
The World Gold Council notes that the continued presence of the same countries among active buyers indicates the long-term nature of gold accumulation policies. Monthly changes in purchase volumes largely reflect the implementation schedules of these programmes, market conditions and the liquidity needs of individual countries.
According to the WGC, in January-August 2026 central banks reported net purchases of approximately 170 tonnes of gold. At the same time, officially recorded changes in reserves do not necessarily reflect total public-sector demand, as some central bank transactions become known with a delay or are not disclosed.
The World Gold Council regularly tracks changes in central banks’ official gold reserves based on data from the International Monetary Fund, national regulators and other official sources. The WGC regards central bank demand as one of the key factors in the global gold market.
Central banks, CHINA, CZECH REPUBLIC, EXPERTS CLUB, GOLD, gold reserves, KAZAKHSTAN, POLAND, UZBEKISTAN, WORLD GOLD COUNCIL
The Central Bank of Russia became the largest gold seller among the world’s central banks in August 2026, reducing its official gold reserves by approximately 6.2 tonnes, according to an Experts Club analysis based on data from the World Gold Council (WGC).
Among the notable gold sellers in August, the WGC highlights:
Russia – about 6.2 tonnes
Jordan – about 3.1 tonnes
Russia continued reducing its gold reserves after selling approximately 6 tonnes in July. In total, in January-August 2026, Russia’s official gold reserves decreased by approximately 56 tonnes.
Following the August sale, the amount of gold in Russia’s reserves stood at about 2,271 tonnes.
Jordan sold about 3.1 tonnes of gold in August. However, unlike Russia, the country remains a net buyer after the first eight months of the year: since the beginning of 2026, its gold reserves have increased by approximately 2 tonnes to 75 tonnes. Gold accounts for about 37% of Jordan’s international reserves.
At the same time, Turkey remains the largest gold seller for January-August, despite switching to purchases in August.
According to the WGC, Turkey has reduced its gold reserves by approximately 82 tonnes since the beginning of the year. The bulk of the sales occurred in the first quarter of 2026. In August, the trend changed, with the Turkish central bank purchasing about 2.9 tonnes of gold.
Russia ranks second among the largest sellers since the beginning of the year, with about 56 tonnes.
Thus, August showed a significant predominance of buyers over sellers: the world’s central banks collectively purchased 39 tonnes of gold on a net basis, compared with 23 tonnes in July.
The World Gold Council notes that the data cover officially reported changes in the reserves of central banks and other official institutions and may differ from the broader estimate of global central bank demand, which takes into account unreported purchases.
Central banks, EXPERTS CLUB, GOLD, gold reserves, JORDAN, RUSSIA, TURKEY, WORLD GOLD COUNCIL
Exports of Ukrainian IT services in January–August 2026 increased by 4% compared to the same period last year—to $4.46 billion, according to data from the National Bank of Ukraine analyzed by Experts Club.
In terms of foreign exchange revenue, the sector has effectively returned to the levels seen in the corresponding period of 2023, though it has not yet reached the peak figures of 2022.
In January–August 2022, the volume of IT exports was approximately 9% higher than the current figure.
Thus, the trend of recent years can be divided into two periods: after a record-breaking 2022, Ukrainian IT exports began to decline, and in 2026, they are once again showing growth.
The importance of IT for the entire Ukrainian services sector remains particularly significant. In the first eight months of 2026, Ukraine exported services worth $10.9 billion, which is approximately 6% higher than the figure for the same period last year.
IT accounted for 41% of this total—that is, more than $4 out of every $10 Ukraine earned from service exports.
The sector’s share of total foreign trade also remains significant. Total exports of goods and services for January–August amounted to $35.8 billion, of which $4.46 billion came from IT companies and specialists.
As a result, the IT sector accounts for about 12% of the country’s total exports—roughly one in every eight dollars of export revenue.
If current growth rates continue, the sector could end 2026 with its best performance in several years; however, growth rates will need to accelerate to return to the record levels seen in 2022.
Data source: National Bank of Ukraine.
