How did Eternal and Swiggy perform in the second quarter of fiscal year 2027? Both companies are major players in India's quick commerce and food delivery sectors, which require significant investment and ongoing cash flow to grow. In Q2 FY27, Eternal demonstrated strong growth and profitability, while Swiggy continued to face operational losses despite revenue gains.
- Eternal's consolidated revenue grew 76% year-over-year to ₹24,621 crore.
- Swiggy's consolidated revenue increased 33% year-over-year to ₹7,909 crore.
- Eternal remained EBITDA positive with ₹666 crore, a 442% increase year-over-year.
- Swiggy's EBITDA loss widened to ₹760 crore in Q2 FY27.
- Both companies expanded their quick commerce operations with differing strategies and results.
What were the revenue trends for Eternal and Swiggy in Q2 FY27?
Eternal showed a remarkable 76% increase in consolidated revenue, reaching ₹24,621 crore compared to ₹13,968 crore in the same quarter the previous year. This growth was largely driven by a 93% year-over-year jump in the quick commerce segment. Other segments such as food delivery and going out also contributed with 35% and 60% growth respectively.
Swiggy's consolidated revenue rose by 33% to ₹7,909 crore, supported by a 24.6% increase in gross order value to ₹20,793 crore. The food delivery segment remained the largest revenue contributor, growing 18% year-over-year. The quick commerce segment grew over 30%, making up 16.4% of total revenue.
How did the companies perform operationally in Q2 FY27?
Eternal maintained a positive EBITDA of ₹666 crore, up 442% from the previous year. The food delivery business was the main contributor to EBITDA, despite generating less revenue than quick commerce. This indicates strong operational efficiency.
Swiggy, however, saw its EBITDA loss increase from ₹695 crore in Q2 FY26 to ₹760 crore in Q2 FY27. The quick commerce segment, Instamart, experienced a widening EBITDA loss from ₹849 crore to ₹895 crore. The food delivery segment improved its EBITDA margin from 2.8% to 3.4%, which helped somewhat but was not enough to offset losses.
What differences exist between Eternal’s Blinkit and Swiggy’s Instamart?
Blinkit, Eternal’s quick commerce platform, delivered 398.9 million orders in Q2 FY27, significantly more than Instamart’s 130.3 million orders. Blinkit operates 2,751 dark stores, compared to Instamart’s 1,240. Despite a lower average order value of ₹525 versus Instamart’s ₹708, Blinkit remains EBITDA positive due to lower customer acquisition costs and faster capital returns.
Instamart’s higher order value has not translated into profitability, as operational costs and losses remain high. Blinkit’s wider reach and efficient operations give Eternal a competitive advantage in quick commerce.
How did net profits and losses compare for both companies?
Eternal’s net profit nearly doubled to ₹125 crore in Q2 FY27 from ₹65 crore the previous year, reflecting improved profitability. Swiggy’s net loss narrowed from ₹1,092 crore to ₹922 crore but remained substantial. Operational efficiency is a key factor in this difference.
What are the capital expenditure and investment trends?
Quick commerce requires high capital expenditure. Swiggy spent ₹199 crore in Q2 FY27, while Eternal invested ₹941 crore. Eternal also spent ₹1,463 crore on working capital, mainly for inventory ahead of the festive season. Both companies continue to invest heavily in expanding dark stores, marketing, and customer acquisition to sustain growth.
What is the outlook for quick commerce in India?
Quick commerce and food delivery remain capital-intensive sectors with ongoing cash burn. Both Eternal and Swiggy are committed to reducing acquisition and marketing costs to achieve long-term sustainability. Operational efficiency and strategic investment will be crucial for future success in this competitive market.
