Swiggy vs Eternal: Who is winning India’s quick commerce race after Q2 results? Which stock should you buy? – Markets


Swiggy vs Eternal

Swiggy vs Eternal comparison: Q2 results, Blinkit vs Instamart expansion, management commentary, stock performance and Citi target prices. (Image: AI/ET Now)

India’s quick commerce battle is heating up, with fresh quarterly results from Swiggy and Eternal, Zomato’s parent company, offering a snapshot of the sector’s current health and providing insights into where the industry’s growth trajectory could be headed in the coming quarters.

From revenue growth and expansion plans to management’s long-term vision and Citi’s stock outlook, here’s how the two quick commerce rivals stack up against each other.

Swiggy vs Eternal: Stock Performance

While both stocks have faced pressure in the short term, Eternal has significantly outperformed Swiggy over the longer term. Eternal has delivered returns of 187.33 per cent over the past three years, compared with 87.30 per cent for Swiggy. Over the past year, however, Swiggy has marginally outperformed, gaining 4.57 per cent while Eternal declined 4.71 per cent.

Period Eternal Swiggy
1 Week -3.81% -7.84%
1 Month -8.68% -13.79%
YTD 10.25% 10.66%
1 Year -4.71% 4.57%
3 Years 187.33% 87.30%
5 Years 127.15% –

Swiggy vs Eternal: Q2 Results

The latest quarterly earnings highlight a clear divergence in the financial performance of Eternal and Swiggy. Eternal delivered a stronger-than-expected quarter, with revenue rising 19.4 per cent sequentially to Rs 24,138 crore, EBITDA increasing 26.6 per cent to Rs 752 crore, and net profit growing 36 per cent QoQ to Rs 125 crore. While profit missed some estimates due to higher depreciation costs, the company’s overall operating performance remained healthy, supported by margin expansion.

In contrast, Swiggy reported a more challenging quarter. Revenue grew 11.1 per cent QoQ to Rs 7,571 crore, broadly in line with expectations. However, losses widened more than anticipated, with EBITDA loss expanding to Rs 770 crore and net loss widening to Rs 922 crore, reflecting continued investments in growth and expansion.

Eternal QoQ (%) Swiggy QoQ (%)
Revenue (Rs Crore) 24,138 0.194 7,571 0.111
EBITDA (Rs Crore) 752 0.266 Loss of `770 cr Widened QoQ
PAT (Rs Crore) 125 0.36 Net loss of `922 cr Widened QoQ

Blinkit vs Instamart

In its Q2 results, Eternal reported that Blinkit added 308 net new stores, taking its network to 2,751 stores. The company expects to cross 3,500 stores by March 2027.

On the other hand, Instamart added 69 dark stores during the quarter, equal to the cumulative additions of the previous three quarters, bringing the total to 1,240 stores.

Metric Eternal (Blinkit) Swiggy (Instamart)
Stores Added in 308 69
Total Store Count 2,751 1,240

Swiggy vs Eternal: What management has to say

Eternal’s management maintained its long-term expectation of around 20 per cent year-on-year growth for its food delivery business. In quick commerce, the company reiterated its target of delivering 60 per cent CAGR in NOV over the next three years. Management also indicated that, while competition has remained intense over the past year, the worst of the competitive pressure may now be behind the industry.

Swiggy’s management, meanwhile, reiterated its 18-20 per cent medium-term GOV growth guidance for the food delivery segment. In quick commerce, the company said adjusted EBITDA losses likely peaked in Q2FY27. However, unlike Eternal, Swiggy expects competitive intensity to remain elevated and does not foresee a meaningful easing of competition in the near term.

Metric Eternal Swiggy
Food Delivery Outlook Maintained ~20% YoY annual growth expectation Maintained 18-20% medium-term GOV growth guidance
Quick Commerce Outlook Continues to target 60% NOV CAGR over the next three years; currently tracking ahead of plan Adjusted EBITDA losses peaked in Q2FY27, signalling improving profitability trajectory
View on Competition Competitive intensity has been heavy over the past year but appears to have peaked Competitive intensity remains high and is unlikely to ease in the near term

Swiggy vs Eternal: Current and Future Ventures

Swiggy and Eternal (Zomato’s parent company) are competing across food delivery and quick commerce, but their current bets are diverging: Eternal is scaling Blinkit aggressively and building AI, while Swiggy is prioritising profitability, supply-chain control, and new value-led food delivery.

Area Swiggy Eternal
Food delivery Core Swiggy app Zomato
Quick commerce Instamart and private labels such as NOICE and Nectr. Blinkit
Dining/out-of-home Dineout Eternal’s District platform
New consumer bets Toing dark.ai

Swiggy vs Eternal: Where could they head?

Citi remains constructive on both stocks but sees greater upside potential in Eternal. The brokerage has maintained a BUY rating on both companies, while keeping its target price for Eternal unchanged at Rs 385 and cutting Swiggy’s target price to Rs 330 from Rs 390. The targets set by Citi for Eternal and Swiggy reflect upside potential of 26.5 per cent and 2.6 per cent, respectively.

Metric Eternal Swiggy
Citi Rating BUY BUY
Current Market Price (CMP) Rs 304.45 Rs 321.60
Target Price Rs 385 Rs 330
Implied Upside 26.50% 2.60%

Swiggy vs Eternal: Outlook

Citi’s latest targets suggest Eternal offers significantly more upside potential, with the brokerage seeing roughly 26.5 per cent upside from current levels. The brokerage remains bullish on the company, naming it a top pick in the India internet space and raising its store expansion guidance to 3,500 stores by March 2027.

For Swiggy, Citi’s target price revision reflects a more cautious stance despite retaining its BUY rating. While the brokerage highlighted solid food delivery growth and margin improvement, it noted slower-than-expected quick commerce growth and higher losses in the segment. As a result, the revised target implies a modest 2.6 per cent upside, indicating that much of the near-term optimism may already be reflected in the stock price.

Swiggy vs Eternal: Brokerage View

Swiggy

Brokerage Recommendation Target Price
JM Financial Reduce 200
HSBC Hold 240
CLSA Accumulate 262
Motilal Oswal Financial Services (MOSL) Buy 280
Nomura Buy 300
Axis Capital Buy 309
Kotak Securities Buy 310
Emkay Buy 310
Citi Buy 330
Jefferies Buy 330
Bernstein Outperform 350
Nuvama Buy 403
Macquarie Underperform 230
Morgan Stanley Equal-weight 263
UBS Buy 375
Brokerage Name Recommendation Target Price
DAM Capital Buy 360
Morgan Stanley Overweight 417
JPMorgan Overweight 420
Jefferies Buy 430
CLSA Buy 513
Macquarie Underperform 225
Nomura Buy 350
Bernstein Outperform 350
Citi Buy 385
UBS Buy 390
ICICI Securities Buy 425

(Disclaimer: The above article is meant for informational purposes only, and should not be considered as any investment advice. ET NOW DIGITAL suggests its readers/audience to consult their financial advisors before making any money-related decisions.)



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *