It is natural to analyse the eSIM market country by country. In fact, that is exactly how the Holafly Global eSIM Index approaches it. This makes sense because regulation, licensing, and competitive conditions are largely defined within national borders. However, as I went through the profiles of different markets, something particularly caught my attention. Operators competing in countries thousands of miles apart often seem to share a much more similar vision of eSIM than some of their domestic competitors. An operator in Thailand may have more in common with one in Germany than with another competing for the same customers in Bangkok. This raises an interesting question: to what extent does an operator’s eSIM strategy really depend on the country in which it operates?
Converging strategic intent across continents
One of the clearest similarities emerges in the connected device ecosystem. In Estonia, one operator has built much of its proposition around wearables, while in Germany, smartwatch connectivity using a single phone number has become an area of intense competition. In Thailand, the two major operators are developing multi-device offerings, and in Malaysia, we find propositions that integrate smartphones, smartwatches, and laptops. New Zealand provides another example, with an operator that has made this convergence one of its key differentiators. These markets have very different income levels, competitive structures, and regulatory frameworks, yet their offerings reflect the same commercial ambition: seeing eSIM not simply as a replacement for a physical SIM card, but as a way to expand the customer relationship beyond the smartphone.
Customer acquisition represents a second strategy that is repeated across borders, even when competitive circumstances differ. In the United States, one of the major operators uses instant activation through its app to make it easier for consumers to try its services. In Malaysia, the transformation of the wholesale network market has intensified competition and made ease of activation a more relevant commercial tool. In New Zealand, an operator seeking to gain market share has also found in eSIM a way to lower barriers to switching. The specific motivations may vary, but the underlying reasoning is virtually identical: if switching providers becomes easier, the operator that removes the most friction from the sign-up process can turn that convenience into a competitive advantage.
Efficiency, sustainability, and industrial applications
Not every operator, however, sees eSIM as an opportunity to sell more. Some are primarily interested in spending less. In Estonia, we find operators that include operational cost reduction among their motivations, while in Chile, replacing physical SIM cards also follows a cost-saving rationale. In Sweden, this argument is complemented by sustainability considerations and the reduction of plastic consumption. In these cases, eSIM is no longer primarily a tool for commercial differentiation but becomes an instrument of operational efficiency. This distinction means that two companies may promote exactly the same technology while pursuing very different economic objectives.
There are also patterns that extend beyond the consumer market. In the automotive industry embedded connectivity through eSIM is rapidly becoming a global standard to manage vehicle services, telemetry, and communications. While markets like Sweden and Japan have been early adopters, China has leaped ahead of Europe and Japan. This is clearly reflected in the massive volume of data consumed by Chinese connected vehicles, which constantly transmit telemetry, tracking everything from whether the driver is holding the steering wheel to monitoring where their eyes are looking. In New Zealand, a completely different industrial use case emerges with agricultural sensors remotely managing connectivity on farms far from urban centers. These are not identical business models, but they rely on the same technological capability to solve industry-specific challenges, including managing connectivity remotely and reducing the need for physical intervention. Once again, the commercial application appears to have more to do with the needs of each industry than with the country in which it is deployed.
Strategic alignment meets local friction
What makes all these examples interesting is that they do not describe an industry moving at the same pace toward a common destination. Instead, they reveal operators identifying different opportunities within the same technology and finding strategic reference points in companies located thousands of miles away. An operator focused on connecting additional devices may have more strategic similarities with a company on another continent than with a domestic competitor whose priority is reducing costs or accelerating customer acquisition. This does not mean national conditions have stopped mattering. Rather, it suggests that we may be using national borders to organize a phenomenon whose most important commercial differences do not necessarily follow those boundaries.
Identifying an opportunity, however, is one thing. Being able to execute it is quite another. The ambition to deliver a seamless activation experience runs into biometric verification requirements in Thailand, strict identity verification rules in Malaysia, and a digital identity ecosystem in Sweden that simplifies certain processes for residents but can complicate them for visitors. The commercial ambition may be similar, yet the final customer experience can be very different. My impression is that operators’ strategies can spread internationally much more easily than the regulatory and operational conditions needed to implement them. Ideas cross borders, but obstacles remain local.
Looking ahead: The next evolution of the eSIM Index
This is precisely one of the perspectives incorporated into the upcoming update of the Holafly Global eSIM Index. After examining eSIM development country by country, the new analysis shifts its focus to explore what operators are doing across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and Asia-Pacific. The objective is to identify recurring strategic models, differences between companies, and the conditions that enable or hinder their implementation.
The first edition of the Holafly Global eSIM Index helped us understand where each market stood. The upcoming update will allow us to look beyond those positions to understand the decisions operators are making and the paths they are choosing to develop eSIM. And perhaps we will discover that, to better understand the future of this technology, we need to start comparing strategies, not just countries.
We will be sharing the new findings very soon. Stay tuned.
