Eternal vs Swiggy Q4FY26: Growth, Profitability and Key Comparison

Eternal and Swiggy are no longer fighting only for food delivery. The real competition is now across India’s convenience market, including food delivery, quick commerce, dining, events, and supply chain.

But before comparing their Q4FY26 numbers, let’s understand two key metrics that you will keep seeing throughout this blog: GOV and NOV.

Understanding GOV and NOV

GOV means Gross Order Value. It is the total value of orders before deducting discounts. NOV means Net Order Value. It is the value of orders after deducting discounts.

For example, if a customer places an order worth ₹1,000 and gets a ₹100 discount, the GOV will be ₹1,000, while the NOV will be ₹900.

Swiggy reports GOV in many places, while Eternal reports NOV in many places. So, the numbers are not always perfectly like-for-like, but they still help us compare scale, growth, and business direction. 

Who Has the Stronger Overall Business?

At the overall level, the numbers show a clear difference in scale and profitability.

In Q4FY26, Eternal’s B2C NOV stood at ₹26,880 crore, growing 54% YoY, while Swiggy’s B2C GOV stood at ₹18,131 crore, growing 40.7% YoY.

Even with different reporting metrics, Eternal’s consumer order value is around 48% higher than Swiggy’s.

The profitability gap is even sharper. Eternal reported adjusted EBITDA of ₹429 crore, while Swiggy reported an adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹652 crore.

That is a difference of ₹1,081 crore in just one quarter.

This shows that Eternal is not just larger. It is also converting scale into profit. Swiggy is growing too, but its growth is still costing more.

Why We Are Not Comparing Revenue Directly

Revenue growth looks very different for Eternal and Swiggy, but it is not the cleanest comparison.

In Q4FY26, Eternal’s consolidated adjusted revenue grew 186% YoY to ₹17,680 crore, while Swiggy’s consolidated adjusted revenue grew 41.3% YoY to ₹6,665 crore.

At first glance, Eternal’s revenue growth looks much stronger. But there is an important reason behind this. Blinkit moved to a first-party model in quick commerce, where revenue now includes the full value of goods sold, not just the platform commission.

Because of this accounting change, Eternal’s reported revenue growth looks much higher than the underlying business growth. On a like-for-like basis, Eternal’s consolidated adjusted revenue grew 64% YoY, not 186%.

That is why, for this comparison, GOV and NOV are more useful. They show the actual order value flowing through the platform. After that, adjusted EBITDA helps us understand whether that scale is becoming profitable.

So, throughout this blog, we will focus more on GOV or NOV for scale and adjusted EBITDA for profitability, instead of comparing revenue numbers directly.

Food Delivery: Growth vs Profitability

Food delivery is the most mature business for both companies, so it is a good way to judge business quality.

Swiggy had stronger growth in Q4FY26. Its food delivery GOV grew 22.6% YoY to ₹9,005 crore, while Eternal’s food delivery NOV grew 18.8% YoY to ₹9,757 crore.

But Eternal was ahead on profitability. Its food delivery adjusted EBITDA stood at ₹532 crore with a 5.5% margin, while Swiggy’s adjusted EBITDA stood at ₹297 crore with a 3.3% margin.

That means Eternal generated ₹235 crore more adjusted EBITDA from food delivery in Q4FY26, with a margin that was 220 basis points higher.

So, Swiggy had better growth momentum, but Eternal had better business quality. It had a larger order value base, higher adjusted EBITDA, and stronger margins.

Quick Commerce: Blinkit Is Far Ahead of Instamart

Quick commerce is the biggest gap between Eternal and Swiggy.

In Q4FY26, Blinkit’s NOV stood at ₹14,386 crore with 95.4% YoY growth, while Instamart’s NOV stood at ₹5,675 crore with 60.3% YoY growth.

This means Blinkit’s quick commerce NOV was around 2.5 times Instamart’s NOV.

The store gap is also large. Blinkit ended the quarter with 2,243 stores after adding 216 net new stores, while Instamart had 1,143 active dark stores. That gives Blinkit nearly 1,100 more stores than Instamart.

Profitability makes the gap even clearer. Blinkit reported adjusted EBITDA of ₹37 crore, with a 0.3% margin of NOV. Instamart reported an adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹858 crore, with a negative 10.9% margin of GOV.

The key point is that both companies are operating in the same competitive quick commerce market, but their economics look very different. Blinkit is already adjusted EBITDA positive, while Instamart is still carrying heavy losses.

Out-of-Home: Scale vs Profitability

The out-of-home segment is more balanced than quick commerce.

Eternal’s District reported NOV of ₹2,736 crore with 46.5% YoY growth, while Swiggy’s Out-of-Home Consumption business reported GOV of ₹1,245 crore with 43% YoY growth.

This means District is more than 2 times larger than Swiggy’s Out-of-Home business by order value.

But Swiggy is ahead on profitability. District reported an adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹81 crore, while Swiggy’s Out-of-Home business reported adjusted EBITDA of ₹10 crore with a 0.8% margin.

The difference is also strategic. District is being built as a broader going-out platform across restaurants, movies, concerts, playing arenas, and local discovery. Swiggy’s Dineout is more focused on restaurant discovery and dining.

Supply Chain Business

Eternal’s Hyperpure revenue stood at ₹978 crore in Q4FY26, growing 37% YoY, with adjusted EBITDA of ₹5 crore and a 0.5% margin.

Swiggy’s Supply Chain and Distribution revenue stood at ₹3,135 crore, growing 56.4% YoY. But it reported an adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹42 crore, with a negative 1.3% margin.

So, Swiggy’s supply chain business is over 3 times larger and growing faster.

Profitability Is the Real Difference

Both companies are growing, but Eternal’s growth is more profitable.

At the consolidated level, Eternal reported adjusted EBITDA of ₹429 crore, while Swiggy reported an adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹652 crore. That is a ₹1,081 crore gap in one quarter.

The same pattern appears in key segments. In food delivery, Eternal generated ₹532 crore adjusted EBITDA versus Swiggy’s ₹297 crore. In quick commerce, Blinkit generated ₹37 crore adjusted EBITDA, while Instamart lost ₹858 crore.

Eternal is already showing profitable growth at scale. Swiggy is improving, but it still needs to prove that better unit economics can translate into consolidated profitability.

Cash Position

Both companies have strong cash reserves. Eternal ended Q4FY26 with ₹17,972 crore cash, while Swiggy ended with ₹15,053 crore. Eternal has around ₹2,919 crore more cash.

But the bigger difference is cash plus profitability. Eternal has a large cash balance and positive adjusted EBITDA of ₹429 crore. Swiggy has cash, but reported an adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹652 crore.

Cash gives both companies room to compete, but profitability gives Eternal more control. In a long quick commerce battle, Eternal is better placed because it can fund growth from a stronger financial base.

Key Risks to Watch

For Eternal, the main risk is whether Blinkit can sustain strong growth on a much larger base. Its NOV grew 95.4% YoY in Q4FY26, but this pace will become harder to maintain as scale increases. District is another watchpoint because it is still loss-making, with an adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹81 crore.

For Swiggy, the biggest risk is profitability. Instamart lost ₹858 crore at the adjusted EBITDA level in Q4FY26, and food delivery margins are still behind Eternal at 3.3% of GOV versus 5.5% of NOV.

Swiggy also needs to prove that Instamart’s differentiation-led strategy can work without slowing growth or increasing losses again.

Key Takeaways for Investors

Eternal currently looks stronger. It has a larger consumer platform, better profitability, stronger food delivery margins, and a much bigger quick commerce business.

Blinkit is the biggest advantage. Its NOV of ₹14,386 crore is around 2.5 times Instamart’s NOV of ₹5,675 crore. It also has 2,243 stores versus Instamart’s 1,143 stores and is already adjusted EBITDA positive.

Swiggy has positives too: stronger food delivery growth, improving Instamart contribution margin, profitable Dineout, and ₹15,053 crore cash balance. But it still needs to prove that these improvements can reduce overall losses.

So, Eternal is a growth-plus-profitability story. Swiggy is still an execution story. For investors, the key metric to watch is profitable growth, not just growth.