Anh (2021) asserts that the sediment budget model by Ve et al. (2021) of the subaqueous Red River Delta (RRD) is inaccurate because of some fundamental flaws in the DEM analysis and budget estimation. In fact, bathymetric data from the two earliest charts have been validated with data from a survey carried out over a short time span (1927–1930) and a linear semi-variogram model used to do the kriging interpolation. Different grid cell sizes have a negligible effect on the DEM analysis, and the effect of relative sea-level rise has been ruled out by normalization of bathymetrical data from sequential charts to a common tidal datum. Furthermore, the estimation of the amount of deposited sediment on tidal flats is correct, although a typo of sediment volume unfortunately yielded a wrong value. We can thus confirm that the data in the sediment budget model of Ve et al. (2021) are reliable.The sediment budget model can be improved by full consideration of sediment from source to sink processes as suggested by Anh (2021). We therefore refine the model by considering river bedload and sand mining in the RRD in the sediment input item, and separate the subtidal RRD into three subzones to calculate their average depositional/erosional sediment volume and mass. In the revisited model, a total of 54.7 Mt./yr is inferred to be deposited in the subaqueous RRD from the intertidal flats to the delta-front slope, of which 75.3% and 24.7% are conceivably sourced by the Red River and eroded from the prodelta and offshore shelf, respectively. However, the controlling mechanism of secular erosion at the prodelta and offshore shelf is so far not well known, and this will need to be investigated in the future.