Quick Commerce Q3: Big Revenues, Bigger Choices
At first glance, Q3 numbers look decisive. Zomato crossed ₹16,000 crore in quarterly revenue and reported profits. Swiggy reported ~₹6,000 crore and remained loss-making. But quick commerce is not a headline game. It’s a model game.
The gap exists mainly because Blinkit runs an inventory-owned model. When it sells a ₹100 item, it books ₹100 as revenue. Instamart, largely a marketplace, books only its commission. Same customer demand. Very different accounting.
That choice comes with consequences. Inventory ownership boosts reported revenue but ties up cash and raises risk. In Q3 FY26, Zomato spent over ₹10,000 crore just buying stock. Scale helps, but mistakes get expensive.
Food delivery, once the hero, is now the supporting actor. Growth is steady, margins are stable, and the business throws off cash. Zomato’s food delivery EBITDA margins are near structural peaks; Swiggy’s are improving but thinner. Both now use food delivery mainly to fund the real fight.
That fight is quick commerce.
Blinkit hit adjusted EBITDA breakeven this quarter — a milestone, not a finish line. Management itself admits margin paths are unpredictable and competition can force sacrifices. Instamart is still loss-making, but losses are narrowing as focus shifts from store expansion to higher throughput per store.
A key lesson came from Swiggy’s experiments: discounts can buy orders, not habits. Growth faded once incentives stopped. That insight now shapes strategy — chasing “good growth” over loud growth.
Quick commerce in India is still being written in real time. The winner won’t be the one with the biggest quarter, but the one that can keep investing without breaking its economics when growth slows.
ITC