SWIGGY

vs

ETERNAL

: Diverging Investment Strategies in India’s Food-Delivery Race

Aggressive expansion vs cautious scaling—two paths to growth 🔹 Fundraising Snapshot -

raised ₹11,327 crore via IPO in Nov 2024, of which ₹4,359 crore was fresh capital for business use. - (formerly Zomato) raised ₹8,436 crore through a QIP, targeting institutional investors. 🔹 Utilization Patterns - Swiggy has already deployed ₹2,852 crore (~62% of its IPO funds), focusing on: - Debt repayment - Instamart dark-store expansion - Brand marketing - Eternal has spent ₹2,946 crore (~35% of QIP funds), with ₹5,491 crore parked in safe assets like government securities and bank deposits. 🔹 Spending Breakdown - Eternal’s allocation: - ₹1,039 crore – Dark stores - ₹942 crore – Corporate expenses - ₹636 crore – Marketing - ₹329 crore – Technology - Swiggy’s allocation: - ₹1,137 crore – Corporate expenses - ₹568 crore – Marketing - ₹546 crore – Dark stores - ₹299 crore – Tech & infrastructure - ₹165 crore – Scootsy debt repayment 🔹 Runway & Liquidity Outlook - Eternal’s conservative pace gives it a two-year runway at current burn rate. - Swiggy’s aggressive spending means its funds may last only 2–3 quarters, prompting a planned ₹10,000 crore QIP in December. 🔹 Strategic Contrast - Swiggy is in market capture mode, offering discounts, lowering fees, and pushing brand visibility. - Eternal is focused on service quality and retention, especially through Blinkit, which holds nearly twice the market share of Swiggy’s Instamart. 🔹 Long-Term Vision - Blinkit and Zepto are investing in faster delivery, broader category offerings, and operational depth. - Swiggy is playing catch-up, betting on aggressive expansion to close the gap.