August’s order figures have sent fresh ripples through Europe’s onshore wind competitive landscape.

That month, Vestas and Nordex each announced four new orders – but with a stark gap between them. Vestas secured 530 MW across projects in the US, Germany, Italy and Peru, while Nordex took home 1,164 MW spanning the US, Germany, Türkiye and Romania. All were onshore projects, putting Nordex’ monthly order intake at more than double that of Vestas.

This is no one-off fluctuation, but the result of a decade-long catch-up trajectory.

A Decade of Catch-Up: Lead Narrows from 268% to 64%

Casper Blom, Senior Equity Analyst at Danske Bank, compiled data from both companies’ annual reports, and the trend is unmistakable.

In 2016, Vestas delivered 9,654 MW of onshore turbines, compared to just 2,622 MW for Nordex – a lead of 268%. Back then, Nordex was little more than an also-ran.

Five years later in 2021, Vestas delivered 14,587 MW and Nordex 6,679 MW, narrowing the lead to 118%.

By 2025, Vestas’ onshore deliveries stood at 12,560 MW and Nordex’ at 7,663 MW, squeezing the lead further to 64%. Over the decade, Nordex has cut the gap by more than three-quarters.

The pattern is mirrored on the revenue side. In 2016, Vestas generated €8.9 billion in onshore project revenue, 187% higher than Nordex’ €3.1 billion. By 2025, Vestas’ onshore revenue reached €12.6 billion, with its lead trimmed to 87%.

Order data for 2026 continues the trend. As of August 2026, Vestas had announced 8,426 MW of onshore orders, versus Nordex’ 6,087 MW – a lead of 38%, a figure that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

What Has Nordex Done Right?

In Blom’s view, Nordex’ rise has first and foremost benefited from retreats by its competitors.

Siemens Gamesa and GE Vernova have scaled back their installation volumes, opting for more disciplined, cautious strategic choices in their business development. Nordex has been particularly successful in capturing market share vacated by Siemens Gamesa.

Why did Nordex, rather than Vestas, pick up this share? Blom offers an interesting take: Vestas already held such high market share in many markets that it had limited room for further growth, while Nordex moved faster to capitalise on Siemens Gamesa’s exit, with Vestas reacting more slowly.

This agility is most evident in emerging markets. Blom specifically highlights Türkiye, where Nordex secured a 525 MW standalone order in August – the fruit of its deepening presence in Europe’s more emerging economies.

Still, the two companies’ geographic footprints remain distinct. In Germany, Europe’s largest onshore market, they are evenly matched. In the US, however, Vestas remains significantly larger, with Nordex still in expansion mode.

Vestas’ Moat: Its Service Business

While the gap in onshore deliveries is narrowing, Vestas holds an unassailable advantage in one area: services.

As of the end of March 2026, Vestas serviced more than 56,000 turbines in operation, totalling 164 GW. By comparison, Nordex had service agreements covering just 13,868 turbines, or 48.3 GW, at the end of 2025 – making Vestas’ service footprint more than three times larger.

This gives Vestas a far more entrenched position in the global market. The service business not only delivers stable cash flow, but also forms a moat of customer loyalty. Once a turbine is grid-connected, decades of subsequent operation and maintenance work are typically locked in with the original manufacturer.

Media outlets have relayed these findings to Vestas, but the company declined to comment. Unlike Vestas and Nordex, Siemens Gamesa does not disclose individual order details, making it difficult to precisely track its market share shifts.

A Shifting Landscape

From a single dominant player a decade ago to a two-horse race today, Europe’s onshore wind competitive landscape is being redrawn.

For OEMs, this means no player can rest on its past market share laurels. Nordex has proven over a decade that catch-up is possible, while Vestas has defended its core position through services. For supply chain firms, the window for customer diversification is opening, reducing the risk of over-reliance on a single leading client.

One thing remains unchanged: competition in onshore wind ultimately comes down to product strength, cost control and local service capabilities. Fluctuations in order figures are only the surface; beneath them lies a long-term contest of strategic choice and execution efficiency.