The Indian food and quick-commerce industry has entered one of its most intense phases. Zomato, now operating under its parent company name Eternal Limited, and Swiggy continue to dominate this space. Their financial results for Q2 FY26 (July to September 2025) reveal a story of innovation, competition, and strategic transformation. Food delivery no longer drives the industry alone. Quick-commerce—delivering groceries, electronics, personal care items, and essentials in minutes—now defines success.
Both Zomato and Swiggy reported strong growth, but they walked very different financial paths. One of them reported a profit. The other still recorded losses but gained momentum in user growth and operational efficiency. To determine which company came out ahead this quarter, we must explore their revenues, profitability, user numbers, business strategies, and challenges.
1. Overview of Q2 FY26: Key Highlights
| Metric | Eternal (Zomato + Blinkit) | Swiggy |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | ₹13,590 crore | ₹5,911 crore (adjusted) |
| Profit/Loss | ₹65 crore profit | ₹695 crore loss (adjusted EBITDA) |
| Food Delivery EBITDA | Positive (20%+ YoY improvement) | ₹240 crore profit |
| Quick-Commerce (Grocery) | Blinkit – ₹11,679 crore NOV | Instamart – ₹7,022 crore GOV |
| Quick-Commerce Model | Inventory-led, high revenue recognition | Marketplace + limited inventory |
| User Base | Rapid growth, not disclosed publicly | 22.9 million monthly transacting users |
| Quick-Commerce Growth | 137% Year-on-Year | 108% Year-on-Year |
| Average Order Value | Up across Blinkit food and grocery categories | Food: ~₹450; Instamart: ₹697 |
From a purely financial angle, Eternal (Zomato + Blinkit) secured the lead with a positive net profit. Swiggy still reported losses, but it demonstrated strong improvement and operational discipline.
2. Revenue Comparison: The Numbers Tell a Bold Story
Eternal reported revenue of ₹13,590 crore in Q2 FY26, marking a dramatic 183% year-on-year growth. Blinkit, its quick-commerce subsidiary, contributed heavily to this surge. Blinkit switched to an inventory-led model, where it buys products directly, stores them, and sells them to consumers. This model increases revenue visibility because it allows the company to record the total value of goods sold as revenue.
Swiggy took a different, more conservative approach. It reported ₹5,911 crore in adjusted revenue, which reflects only the commission and delivery income it earns from orders. Even though this number seems lower, it shows real income rather than inflated gross merchandise value.
Both companies grew strongly, but they followed different revenue philosophies. Zomato focused on scaling Blinkit through rapid dark-store expansion and higher order volume. Swiggy focused on sustainable, commission-based revenue growth with healthier margins per order.
3. Profitability: Zomato Leads, Swiggy Improves
Profitability became the clearest dividing line this quarter.
- Eternal (Zomato + Blinkit) reported a net profit of ₹65 crore, even after heavy investment in Blinkit’s infrastructure, marketing, and store expansion.
- The profit dropped compared to last year due to Blinkit’s growth costs, but it still remained positive.
- Zomato’s food delivery arm contributed steady earnings and helped offset Blinkit’s expansion losses.
On the other hand:
- Swiggy reported an adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹695 crore, but this marked a meaningful improvement over previous quarters.
- Swiggy’s food delivery operations generated ₹240 crore in adjusted EBITDA profit, showing clear operational maturity.
- Swiggy lost money primarily because of Instamart, its quick-commerce division, which recorded an EBITDA loss of ₹849 crore.
Zomato won in terms of profit, but Swiggy showed strong progress and efficiency improvements.
4. Food Delivery Business: Stable, Profitable, and Competitive
Zomato’s Food Delivery Arm
Zomato’s food delivery business performed with discipline. Order volumes grew in Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities. The company controlled delivery costs, renegotiated restaurant commission structures, and increased subscription revenue from Zomato Gold.
Zomato also experimented with:
- Platform fees per order,
- Priority delivery for Gold users,
- Chef-branded menus.
These efforts increased the contribution margin in food delivery without reducing user satisfaction.
Swiggy’s Food Delivery Division
Swiggy delivered ₹240 crore adjusted EBITDA profit from food delivery alone. This division expanded its user base to over 17.2 million active monthly users. Swiggy introduced several campaigns like “What’s your Swiggy score?” and “Pocket Hero Deals” to retain and attract users.
Swiggy also focused on:
- Increasing repeat users,
- Expanding Swiggy One subscription,
- Improving delivery partner efficiency.
In food delivery alone, both companies operated with profitability. Swiggy slightly outperformed Zomato in transparency and operational reporting, but both remained strong.
5. Quick-Commerce: Blinkit vs Instamart — The Real Battle
Quick-commerce now represents the future for both companies.
Blinkit (Zomato’s Quick-Commerce Arm)
Blinkit became the star performer in Eternal’s revenue report.
- NOV (Net Order Value): ₹11,679 crore, up 137% year-on-year.
- Adjusted revenue: ₹9,891 crore, up 756% due to the inventory model.
- Blinkit expanded its dark-store network aggressively across Delhi NCR, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Tier 2 cities.
- It increased assortment to include groceries, stationery, festive gifts, electronics, and personal care items.
- Zomato invested heavily in dark stores, technology, cold-storage supply chains, and logistics automation.
Blinkit’s strategy emphasized scale first and profitability later. That strategy helped it dominate volumes but increased cash burn.
Swiggy Instamart
Swiggy’s Instamart demonstrated strong growth with discipline.
- GOV (Gross Order Value): ₹7,022 crore, up 108% year-on-year and 24% quarter-on-quarter.
- Instamart operated 1,102 dark stores in 128 cities.
- The average order value (AOV) on Instamart reached ₹697, significantly higher than earlier quarters.
- Swiggy noticed rising orders in personal care, snacks, household items, and baby products.
Swiggy focused on improving store productivity rather than just expanding store count. It improved:
- Orders per store,
- GOV per square foot,
- Inventory turnover.
Instamart still lost money, but its financial efficiency improved every quarter.
Quick-Commerce Verdict
- Blinkit won on scale and absolute order value.
- Instamart performed better in operational optimization.
- Blinkit generated higher revenue but also absorbed higher costs.
- Instamart reduced losses steadily and moved towards break-even.
6. User Growth and Ordering Trends
Swiggy
- Swiggy reported 22.9 million monthly transacting users.
- The platform recorded 282 million orders in Q2 FY26.
- Average order frequency reached 4.1 orders per user per month.
- Swiggy noticed higher spending by premium urban consumers, especially on Instamart and Swiggy One.
Zomato + Blinkit
Zomato did not disclose a combined user number, but internal data and analyst reports indicate strong growth. Blinkit grew rapidly in metros and Tier 2 cities. Users started ordering not only essentials but also high-ticket items like kitchen gadgets, beauty products, and festive gifts.
Zomato’s focus remained on increasing:
- Cross-platform users,
- Zomato Gold subscriptions,
- Blinkit attach-rate within the Zomato app.
7. Cost Structures and Investments
Zomato / Eternal
- Increased cash burn due to dark-store expansion for Blinkit.
- Higher marketing spend during festive season promotions.
- Logistics, warehousing, and inventory procurement increased operational costs.
- Revenue rose sharply due to inventory-led accounting, but net profit narrowed.
Swiggy
- Controlled marketing expenditure more efficiently.
- Focused on profitability in core food delivery.
- Invested selectively in Instamart store expansion.
- Improved delivery partner efficiency and optimized workforce costs.
Swiggy adopted a profit-first approach in food delivery and a controlled cash-burn approach in quick-commerce. Zomato adopted a growth-first approach in quick-commerce and maintained profitability in food delivery.
8. Strategy and Future Focus
| Strategy Area | Zomato (Eternal) | Swiggy |
|---|---|---|
| Core Focus | Aggressive Blinkit expansion | Balanced food + Instamart growth |
| Profit Strategy | Food profits finance grocery expansion | Food profitable, grocery reduces losses |
| Store Strategy | Increase store count rapidly | Increase per-store productivity |
| Technology | Invest in automation, robo-picking, predictive inventory | Focus on route optimization, data-driven discounts |
| Revenue Streams | Zomato Gold, platform fees, advertising | Swiggy One, restaurant partnerships, advertising |
9. Challenges Ahead
For Zomato / Blinkit
- Managing inventory risk and wastage.
- Reaching profitability in Blinkit while scaling networks.
- Maintaining delivery speed and cost efficiency.
- Regulatory scrutiny on delivery partner pay and platform fees.
For Swiggy
- Reducing Instamart losses faster.
- Facing intense competition from Blinkit, Zepto, and BigBasket.
- Retaining premium users as discounts reduce.
- Expanding to Tier 3 towns without overspending.
10. Final Verdict: Who Wins Q2 FY26?
| Category | Winner |
|---|---|
| Net Profit | Zomato (Eternal) |
| Revenue Growth | Zomato (Eternal) |
| Food Delivery Profit | Swiggy |
| Quick-Commerce Scale | Blinkit (Zomato) |
| Quick-Commerce Efficiency | Swiggy Instamart |
| User Growth Transparency | Swiggy |
| Long-Term Potential | Tie |
Zomato wins the quarter on profits and revenue.
Swiggy wins on operational clarity and food delivery efficiency.
Blinkit leads in scale. Instamart advances in discipline.
Both companies prepare for their biggest test in Q3—the festive quarter. Their performance then will reveal whether profit or growth defines the future of India’s food-tech battle.
Also Read – Are Startup Layoffs a Necessary Evil or Just Bad Management?