Eternal vs Swiggy: Food Delivery Is Close, but Blinkit Has Pulled Ahead

Zomato and Swiggy started as food delivery platforms, but both companies are now building much broader consumer businesses.

Eternal, formerly Zomato, operates Zomato food delivery, Blinkit, District and Hyperpure. Swiggy operates food delivery, Instamart, out-of-home services and a supply-chain business.

Their Q1 FY27 results show that the companies remain close competitors in food delivery. The much larger difference is in quick commerce, where Blinkit has built greater scale and crossed adjusted EBITDA profitability.

Eternal’s Q1 FY27 Revenue Segmentation

Quick commerce accounted for most of Eternal’s reported adjusted revenue. However, this is partly an accounting effect.

Blinkit has shifted towards owning the products sold through its dark stores. Therefore, it records the full selling value of these products as revenue instead of recording only commissions and fees.

After adjusting for this change and Hyperpure’s non-restaurant business, Eternal’s like-for-like adjusted revenue growth was 66%, compared with the reported growth of 173%.

Swiggy’s Q1 FY27 Revenue Segmentation

Swiggy’s largest revenue segment was supply chain and distribution, which sells goods and provides supply-chain services to wholesalers and retailers.

The revenue tables help explain the structure of both companies. However, Eternal’s ₹20,648 crore adjusted revenue should not be directly compared with Swiggy’s ₹7,112 crore because their quick commerce businesses follow different revenue-recognition structures.

Order value and adjusted EBITDA provide a more useful comparison of their core consumer businesses.

Food Delivery: Swiggy vs Zomato

Food delivery is the established business for both companies. They earn through restaurant commissions, advertising, platform fees, user charges and other services.

GOV and NOV are not exactly the same. Swiggy’s GOV is calculated before discounts, while Eternal now reports NOV as its main operating measure. The comparison is therefore directional rather than perfectly like-for-like.

Swiggy Has a Large and Profitable Food Delivery Business

Swiggy’s food delivery order value increased 17.4% to ₹9,490 crore. Its adjusted EBITDA reached ₹292 crore, giving the business a margin of 3.1%.

Swiggy therefore generates around ₹3.10 in adjusted EBITDA for every ₹100 of food orders. The business is profitable and continues to grow, but its profit is not yet sufficient to absorb Instamart’s losses.

Zomato Generates Much More Profit From a Moderately Larger Business

Zomato’s food delivery NOV increased 20.1% to ₹10,769 crore. Adjusted EBITDA reached ₹606 crore, with a margin of 5.6%.

Zomato’s disclosed order value was only around 13% higher than Swiggy’s. However, it generated more than twice the adjusted EBITDA.

Zomato produces around ₹5.60 of adjusted EBITDA for every ₹100 of orders, compared with ₹3.10 for Swiggy. This gives Eternal more internal profit to fund Blinkit and its newer businesses.

Quick Commerce: Instamart vs Blinkit

Quick commerce requires significantly more investment than food delivery. Companies must operate dark stores, hold inventory, build warehouses and manage product fulfilment.

The key question is therefore not only how quickly a platform is growing, but whether that growth is leading to better profitability.

Swiggy reports Instamart’s adjusted EBITDA margin against GOV, while Eternal reports Blinkit’s margin against NOV. The absolute adjusted EBITDA figures therefore provide a clearer profitability comparison.

Instamart’s Order-Level Economics Are Improving

Instamart’s NOV increased 38.9% to ₹5,817 crore. Swiggy ended the quarter with 1,171 dark stores and said the business reached monthly contribution break-even in May 2026.

Contribution break-even means Instamart covered its direct order-related costs during that month. However, it does not include all technology, employee and corporate expenses.

After including these wider costs, Instamart reported an adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹778 crore. Its margin improved to -9.8% of GOV, but the business remains far from complete operating profitability.

Blinkit Has Combined Scale With Profitability

Blinkit’s NOV increased 86.2% to ₹17,132 crore. Its network reached 2,443 stores after adding 200 stores during the quarter.

Despite this rapid expansion, Blinkit generated an adjusted EBITDA profit of ₹102 crore, compared with a loss of ₹162 crore in the same quarter last year.

On a comparable NOV basis, Blinkit was nearly three times Instamart’s size. It was also growing faster despite operating from a much larger base.

Instamart has demonstrated strong demand, but Blinkit has moved further by combining scale, rapid growth and positive adjusted EBITDA.

Why Eternal Is Profitable While Swiggy Is Still Loss-Making

Eternal reported consolidated adjusted EBITDA of ₹555 crore and a net profit of ₹92 crore during Q1 FY27.

Swiggy reported a consolidated adjusted EBITDA loss of ₹651 crore and a net loss of ₹791 crore.

Swiggy’s food delivery business generated ₹292 crore of adjusted EBITDA, but Instamart lost ₹778 crore. The profit from food delivery was therefore not enough to cover the quick commerce loss.

Eternal generated ₹606 crore from food delivery and another ₹102 crore from Blinkit. District and other initiatives remained loss-making, but Eternal now has two profitable operating engines supporting the group.

Zomato vs Swiggy: What Should Investors Track?

For Swiggy, the central question is whether Instamart can narrow its adjusted EBITDA loss without sacrificing too much growth. Contribution break-even is progress, but investors need to see that improvement move through to complete segment profitability.

For Eternal, the question has changed. Investors are no longer asking whether Blinkit can reach break-even. They must now track how quickly Blinkit can expand its 0.6% adjusted EBITDA margin while continuing to grow and invest in stores.

Author’s Take: Is Eternal’s Premium Valuation Justified?

Eternal trades at around 4.5 times sales, compared with 3.2 times for Swiggy. The premium reflects stronger food delivery margins and Blinkit’s move into adjusted EBITDA profitability, while Instamart continues to report large losses.

However, the P/S multiples are not directly comparable. Blinkit’s first-party inventory model allows Eternal to record the full value of products sold as revenue, which has sharply increased reported sales without an equal increase in underlying economic value.

Therefore, investors should not compare the two companies only on P/S. Order value, adjusted EBITDA, growth and capital requirements provide a clearer picture.

In my view, Eternal deserves a premium because of its stronger operating performance. However, its reported sales make the valuation gap look smaller than it actually is. Swiggy can narrow this gap only if Instamart reduces losses without slowing growth, while Eternal must continue improving Blinkit’s margins without requiring excessive capital.