Swiggy Vs Zepto Vs Zomato: Customers Or Profits — The Great Question Haunting Qcomm Players

The gross merchandise value (GMV) of India&#039;s quick commerce industry hit Rs 11,000 crore as of January this year - registering a 100% YoY growth, as per Redseer. Even as the business seems to be inching towards maturity, competition has &#039;re-intensified&#039; in the sector. Along with the top three of Instamart, Blinkit and Zepto&amp;nbsp;&mdash; Amazon Now, Flipkart Minutes, BigBasket Now and JioMart Quick have intensified activity.The challengers are expanding footprint, adding dark stores, enhancing their supply chain - all seeking a piece of the pie. Amidst increased competition, each of the top three players seem to be chasing divergent strategies. Zomato seems to be marching step by step with new challengers as it&#039;s keen on acquiring more customers. While Swiggy and Zepto seem to be keen on improving average order value (AOV), thereby chasing less and earning more.ALSO READ:&amp;nbsp;Swiggy Defends Founder Board Nomination Rights After Shareholders Reject IOCC ProposalMore Customers Vs Bigger OrdersAkshant Goyal, CFO of Eternal said in the May earnings conference call that their Monthly Transacting Users (MTU) additions had remained strong in Q4 as they continued to spend on marketing for new customer acquisition.&quot;We feel a lot of our competitors in the market have pulled back on this so we&#039;re seeing extremely low cost of customer acquisition and we, therefore, continue to see value in keeping marketing spends high at this point,&quot; said Akshant Goyal, CFO of Eternal (Zomato) in the Q4 earrings conference call in May.Zepto and Swiggy however seem to be keen on improving margins by selling more to their existing customer base&amp;nbsp;&mdash; breaking them away from the new challengers as well as Zomato.&quot;The way we looked at our MTU is that there is a lot of consumer base that we have that we need to focus more on retention and repeat on the platform and which is what we have been trying to do over the last couple of quarters and which we will continue to do over the next couple of quarters as well,&quot; said Amitesh Jha, the CEO of Swiggy Instamart.While Swiggy has allocated a &#039;definite marketing spend&#039; for the new consumer base, which will keep increasing. &quot;At the same time, our MTU will still face slight headwinds on the base that are low AOV and low frequency,&quot; Jha adds.Zepto, which is getting ready for its own public market debut, seems to be walking in Swiggy&#039;s footsteps. It also said that its digital marketing cost per order has come down to Rs 4.31 in FY26 compared to Rs 21.72 in FY24, in its recently filed DRHP.It says it has been increasing order assortments at its stock keeping units their user value proposition has improved between 2024 to 2026. &quot;This has resulted in an increase in our user retention rate over time, which further reduces our dependence on customer acquisition spend to grow our platform. In short, higher user retention translates into lower customer acquisition cost per order,&quot; Zepto said.ALSO READ:&amp;nbsp;Swiggy Shares Tumble Nearly 7% After Q4 Loss, Despite Revenue Surge: Buy Or Sell?Scale Versus ProfitabilityNeither Instamart, Blinkit nor Zepto are profitable as yet; Blinkit however has reached EBIDTA breakeven. As a few players chase length and others chase breadth, a healthy strategy could be the one with a two-pronged approach, as per experts.&quot;A business like quick commerce is nascent and is not completely penetrated. Scale is very important for such a business and is necessary for survival and to justify their high price to earnings ratios. On the other hand, average order value (AOV) growth is necessary for unit economics and profitability,&quot; says Santosh Sreedhar, partner at Avalon Consulting.The street however is keener on profitability. &quot;Instamart is targeting high-quality cohorts, with key profitability levers, including lower discounts, higher advertising revenue, dark store densification, and private-label penetration like Noice. The company risks near-term market share loss as peers aggressively chase scale. However, successful execution on the profitability roadmap could drive meaningful re-rating, given quick commerce currently trades at near zero or negative implied valuation,&quot; says Karan Taurani of Elara Securities in his quarterly earnings report.ALSO READ:&amp;nbsp;Zepto Q4 Net Loss Narrows To Rs 1,539 Crore, Revenue Rises 75% Ahead Of IPOExpanding The PieWhile competitive intensity is high in quick commerce, these players are not necessarily competing for the same pie &mdash; but can expand the quick commerce universe as well. It could also help improve unit economics, apart from widening the growth story.&quot;The expansion into categories such as electronics, beauty products, personal care, fashion accessories and small appliances has significantly improved the economics of quick commerce platforms. These categories typically carry higher average order values and, in some cases, better margins than traditional grocery items. More importantly, they help increase customer engagement beyond daily essentials and improve overall basket economics,&quot; says Ponmudi R, CEO of Enrich Money, a wealthtech firm.As per Redseer January 2026 data, &#039;other&#039; categories are growing at a much faster pace albeit at a lower pace. Fashion and mobile grew 3.4X and 2.4X respectively while beauty &amp;amp; personal care grew at 1.4X, while home &amp;amp; furniture grew at 90% and epharma at 115%.&quot;Non-grocery grew at around 1.6X faster than grocery, reinforcing that quick commerce growth is now being driven by use-case expansion, not incremental grocery frequency alone. As non-grocery expands, demand is also shifting toward larger basket sizes. Higher AOV buckets are scaling faster, reflecting a gradual but important change in how consumers are using quick commerce,&quot; says the Redseer report.Quick commerce can also compete with ecommerce in general, even as some of the large ecommerce and retail players have entered the game. &quot;As the number of products and categories are increasing, the line between quick commerce and ecommerce has been blurring. Since the services offered are similar between both of them, more product categories can also help improve the customer base too,&quot; adds Sreedhar.ALSO READ:&amp;nbsp;Eternal Q4 Results: Zomato Parent Logs Over 300% Profit Surge; Shares Spike From Day&#039;s LowsGrowth Beyond MetrosMost experts are of the opinion that in the long run only three companies might survive. For them to achieve this, they also need to scale geographically. Since 2024, most quick commerce companies like Instamart and Blinkit have been expanding to tier 2 cities. This strategy could hold the key for future growth. While Instamart is present in 100 cities, Blinkit is present in 40 such cities as of 2025.It has however not been a smooth ride as tier 2 cities bring advantages as well as challenges. As per a report by Bernstein, quick commerce could dominate in top-40 cities while modern trade would flourish in Next-400 cities and general trade to lead in Last-4,000 cities. &quot;There are (and will continue to be) a lot more Indians who are time-rich and money-poor than Indians who are money-rich and time-poor,&quot; the report said.While AOVs might be lower and delivery timelines would be longer, the operating costs of dark stores might also be lower. Moreover, the increased assortments in quick commerce might attract new consumers as well. &quot;While demand exists in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities, consumer behaviour, order density and purchasing power differ significantly. The economics that work in Mumbai, Bengaluru or Delhi may not automatically work in smaller markets.Earlier attempts by food delivery companies to aggressively expand into smaller cities faced challenges due to lower order density and weaker unit economics,&quot; observes Ponmudi. But qcom players could get it right the second time around. Moreover, there is another arc to tier-2 growth which could work in favour of existing challengers.ALSO READ:&amp;nbsp;Zomato vs Swiggy: Investec Initiates Coverage, But Picks A Clear Winner Over THIS Segment&quot;In terms of supply chain, Flipkart and Amazon are much ahead, and they have pivoted in their strategies. At some point in time, they would integrate ecommerce and quick commerce supply chains and when that happens, it would provide them with a greater advantage and a differentiator,&quot; says Sreedhar.As of now however, quick commerce has eight players in the race. Two food delivery majors (Swiggy and Zomato), two ecommerce majors (Amazon and Flipkart), and two backed by major retailers (Reliance Retail backed JioMart Quick and Big Basket backed by Tata&#039;s Star Bazaar). Only one pure play quick commerce player like Zepto is an outlier. Its listing, subsequent growth and strategic direction will set the stage for a new round of competition as well as momentum.Katya Naidu is a senior business journalist who writes about equity markets, startups, energy, infrastructure, real estate and healthcare.Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NDTV Profit or its affiliates. Readers are advised to conduct their own research or consult a qualified professional before making any investment or business decisions.

Swiggy Vs Zepto Vs Zomato: Customers Or Profits — The Great Question Haunting Qcomm Players

Zepto and Swiggy seem to be keen on improving margins by selling more to their existing customer base - breaking them away from the new challengers as well as Zomato.

News for You

James Gunn, Peter Safran Step Down As DC Studios Co-CEO, Former Marvel Executive Latcham Named President

Anthropic Plans IPO Live Stream With Amodei, JPMorgan CEO Dimon

Credit Card Rewards Vs Overspending: Are You Really Getting A Good Deal?

Jensen Huang Told Trump He Didn't Know She Was A Spy, US President Says