Swiggy vs Eternal: Who Is Getting the Q-Commerce Model Right?

For the December 2025 quarter, the financial performance of Swiggy and Eternal (Zomato) diverged sharply. This was unexpected on the surface. Both companies operate in the same food delivery and quick commerce ecosystem. Both have invested aggressively in Q-commerce. And both are competing for the same urban consumer.

Yet, the outcomes could not have been more different.

Swiggy reported widening losses, while Eternal managed to report a small profit. This contrast raises a critical question. If the business models are similar, what explains such a stark difference in performance?

Same Business, Very Different Outcomes

Quick commerce has been the dominant narrative driving valuations and investor interest over the last few years. Speed, convenience, and frequency-based consumption have pushed companies to build dense networks of dark stores and last-mile delivery fleets.

However, the December 2025 results show that execution, not intent, is the differentiator.

Both Swiggy and Eternal are incurring heavy costs due to Q-commerce. But Eternal appears to be closer to making the model work economically, while Swiggy is still absorbing significant losses.

December 2025 Financial Snapshot

The contrast becomes clear when we look at the numbers.

For the December 2025 quarter:

• Swiggy reported a net loss of ₹1,065 crore, widening from a loss of ₹1,092 crore in Q2.
• Over the last two quarters alone, Swiggy has drained ₹2,157 crore.
• Swiggy’s operating losses stood at around ₹790 crore, even before accounting for ESOP-related costs.

In contrast:

• Eternal reported a net profit of ₹102 crore for the quarter.
• Eternal was also profitable at the EBITDA level.

Both companies are investing heavily in quick commerce. The difference is not the absence of cost pressure for Eternal, but its ability to absorb those costs more effectively.

Cost Absorption and the Scale Advantage

The most important factor working in Eternal’s favour is scale.

Quick commerce is a fixed-cost heavy business. Dark stores, warehousing, delivery riders, and technology infrastructure do not scale down easily. The only way to improve margins is to spread these fixed costs over higher revenues.

The quarterly numbers highlight this clearly.

• Eternal reported quarterly expenses of ₹16,493 crore, against revenues of ₹16,315 crore.
• Swiggy, on the other hand, reported quarterly expenses of ₹7,298 crore, against revenues of ₹6,148 crore.

While both companies are operating close to break-even at a gross level, Eternal’s larger revenue base allows it to absorb fixed costs far more efficiently.

This is also the logic behind Swiggy’s recent ₹10,000 crore QIP, which was oversubscribed by more than four times. The expectation is that higher revenues in the future will improve operating leverage. The question is how quickly that leverage can materialise.

Sweating Q-Commerce Assets: The Real Difference

Revenue scale does not happen automatically. It is driven by how efficiently assets are utilised.

A comparison between Instamart and Blinkit illustrates this point.

As of December 2025:

• Instamart operated 1,136 dark stores, while Blinkit operated 2,027 dark stores.
• Instamart serviced 106 million orders in the quarter.
• Blinkit serviced 243 million orders in the same period.
• Instamart had 12.8 million monthly transacting users (MTUs).
• Blinkit had 23.6 million MTUs.

Blinkit was roughly double Instamart on most operating metrics.

But the real divergence appears in revenue.

• Instamart reported revenues of ₹1,052 crore.
• Blinkit reported revenues of ₹12,256 crore.

This nearly 12× difference in revenue highlights the importance of asset sweating. It is not just about how many dark stores or users a platform has. What matters is how much revenue each store, rider, and user generates.

Why Revenue Quality Matters More Than Growth

Quick commerce has become the biggest valuation driver in the consumer internet space. At the same time, it is also the biggest drain on profitability.

Revenues can always be boosted in the short term by:

• Deep discounts
• Aggressive promotions
• Subsidised delivery costs

Such strategies can be funded for a while. But they do not create durable economics unless they lead to higher order values, higher frequency, and better utilisation of assets.

This is where Eternal appears to be ahead. Blinkit’s numbers suggest stronger revenue per customer and better utilisation of its network. Swiggy’s challenge is not demand, but monetisation and operating efficiency.

Valuations and the Real Question

The valuation gap between the two companies reflects this difference in execution.

• Eternal’s market capitalisation stands at around ₹2.70 trillion.
• Swiggy’s market capitalisation is under ₹85,000 crore, less than one-third of Eternal’s.

However, valuation itself is not the core issue.

The real question for both companies is the same. When will quick commerce show clear and sustained visibility of profits?

Growth funded by discounts is easy to achieve. Profitable growth in a fixed-cost heavy business is far harder. At present, quick commerce remains the biggest idea and the biggest risk on both balance sheets.

The Bottom Line on Q-Commerce Economics

Eternal appears closer to cracking the Q-commerce model, primarily due to:

• Better scale
• Stronger asset utilisation
• Higher revenue per customer and per store

Swiggy still has work to do. Its investments are significant, and the opportunity is large, but the path to operating leverage is not yet visible.

Quick commerce is powerful, but it is unforgiving. Execution, not capital, will decide who ultimately wins.

Key Takeaways

• Swiggy and Eternal reported sharply different results in December 2025 despite similar business models
• Swiggy reported a net loss of ₹1,065 crore, while Eternal posted a net profit of ₹102 crore
• Scale and fixed-cost absorption are critical in quick commerce economics
• Blinkit significantly outperforms Instamart in revenue generation despite similar operating metrics
• Revenue quality and asset utilisation matter more than footprint expansion
• Quick commerce needs a clear path to profitable growth to justify long-term valuations

Disclaimer: This article is for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any securities. Any references to companies or financial figures are for discussion and understanding of business models and reported results. Please consider consulting a qualified professional before taking any financial decision.