Alibaba vs 1688: Chinese-name fields found on 0 of 33 vs 59 of 59 profiles.

There are 92 profiles in the comparison: 59 category profiles on 1688 and 33 on Alibaba.com. The latter include 30 category profiles and 3 earlier probes. The download holds 94 supplier profiles because it also keeps 2 control records from 1688. The 2 excluded shops listed separately could not be fetched by profile identifier; they are not those controls.

The six category searches were phone cases, copper alloy, LED lighting, knitted fabric, stainless-steel kitchenware and plastic packaging. The plan used five Alibaba.com profiles and ten 1688 profiles per category. The retained records and exclusions show what was obtained; the sample is not a survey of either platform.

The parser searched for named keys in page source. A matched non-empty string was present. A found key without a matched string value was empty; this includes blank strings and formats the parser did not match. A key not found was absent. This does not establish why a value is missing. Code candidates also faced a check-digit test and a six-digit administrative-division segment test; passing these tests does not verify a company.

One candidate passed the check digit by chance but failed the six-digit administrative-division segment test. That illustrates why a check digit alone is not identity evidence.

What it cannot say

• It is not a count of every supplier. This dated comparison includes category profiles and earlier probes. Platform layouts change; it is not a current platform-wide finding.
• The 1688 figure is an optimistic bound. Only profiles with a retrievable factory card enter this comparison. The term optimistic bound describes that selection concern; this study does not measure suppliers without a card.
• It says nothing about whether the data is correct. The 1688 source block carries provider and pass-date fields. We counted extracted fields, not whether the values are true or current.
• It does not evaluate the badges. We counted fields. Whether an SGS or TÜV assessment is thorough is a different question and not one this method touches.
• It is not reproducible unattended. Both platforms interrupted collection with slider challenges, which a person cleared by hand. We do not solve challenges automatically, and anyone repeating this will need to clear them too.

You may quote or reproduce these figures, including commercially, provided the measurement date, the frame and the stated limits travel with them. One row per profile, with the three-state reading and the check result for every code candidate, is in the data file (JSON).

Archived copies, each with its own DOI, resolving independently of this site: Zenodo · Harvard Dataverse.

Reading correction, 8 September 2026: the download and archived copies retain the original records and method wording. Use the definitions and sample breakdown above. The earlier wording inferred seller behaviour and platform policy from field states; those inferences are not supported. No profiles were collected again for this correction.

A citation with its scope:

Currawong, “Alibaba vs 1688: Chinese-name fields 0/33 vs 59/59”, 92 compared profiles, drawn from 94 retained records across Alibaba.com and 1688, 28 August 2026. https://currawongweb.com/verify/alibaba-vs-1688-supplier-legal-name/ Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22136065

@dataset{currawong_platform_subject_fields_2026,
  author    = {Bao L. Zhou},
  title     = {{Subject-identity fields on Chinese supplier profiles: Alibaba.com and 1688 compared (94 profiles, August 2026)}},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.22136065},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22136065}
}

This study reports field presence, not a service claim. Currawong verifies public records on request and states sources, query dates and limits with every result; it does not certify suppliers.