Eternal’s Blinkit processed 917 million orders and generated $5.5 billion in net order value in FY26, compared with 414 million orders and $3.2 billion of gross order value for Swiggy’s Instamart. The gap gets wider on profitability: Macquarie estimates Blinkit’s adjusted EBITDA margin at -0.6%, against -12.5% for Instamart.

However, the brokerage remains cautious on both stocks. Macquarie has retained its ‘Underperform’ rating on Eternal and Swiggy, even while raising Eternal’s price target was raised 18% to Rs 225 from Rs 190. Its price target for Swiggy remains at Rs 230.

Macquarie lists out the reason for it – It does not doubt the size of the quick-commerce opportunity. It doubts whether scale alone can deliver the level of profitability currently being priced into these businesses.

“We continue to disagree with the thesis that the overall QC portfolio will achieve top-10% economics simply as a function of time; micro-market dynamics matter,” Macquarie said.

The brokerage expects competition to remain intense for years, with Zepto, Amazon Now and Flipkart Minutes adding pressure even as Eternal and Swiggy expand their dark-store networks.

Macquarie on Eternal: ‘Underperform’

Macquarie has raised its price target for Eternal to Rs 225 from Rs 190, but retained its ‘Underperform’ rating. The higher target reflects stronger growth estimates and a greater weighting towards the brokerage’s bullish assumptions, rather than a change in its overall view of the stock.

Blinkit emerges as the stronger of the two quick-commerce businesses in Macquarie’s assessment. The brokerage has raised its FY26-FY29 estimated NOV growth CAGR to around 38%, although that remains below the roughly 50% Visible Alpha consensus estimate.

The more important number is profitability. Macquarie expects Blinkit’s adjusted EBITDA margin to remain below 2% by FY29, compared with around 3% in Visible Alpha consensus.

That means Blinkit can grow rapidly without necessarily producing the level of earnings expansion that the market may be expecting.

Macquarie on Swiggy: ‘Underperform’

Swiggy remains rated ‘Underperform’, with a Rs 230 price target. The brokerage expects food-delivery GOV to grow at a 17% FY26-FY29 CAGR, while adjusted EBITDA margin is forecast to improve from 2.9% in FY26 to 4% by FY29.

Instamart is the bigger problem as per Macquarie. It estimates Instamart’s GOV to  rise to $6.5 billion by FY29 from $3.2 billion in FY26. Its adjusted EBITDA margin, however, is expected to improve only from -12.5% to -7% over the same period.

The brokerage’s model points to adjusted EBITDA losses of around $400 million in FY29, despite the rapid expansion in the business.

Macquarie also argues that the recent IOCC approval could improve contribution margins on paper, but that does not necessarily translate into better fully accounted earnings.

Blinkit has the lead, but competition could keep margins low

The operational gap between Blinkit and Instamart is substantial.

Quick-commerce metricBlinkitInstamart
FY26 monthly transacting users22.1 million12.3 million
FY26 orders917 million414 million
FY26 dark stores2,2431,143
FY26 NOV/GOV$5.5 billion$3.2 billion
FY26 adjusted EBITDA-$31 million-$404 million
FY26 adjusted EBITDA margin-0.6%-12.5%
FY29E NOV/GOV$13.0 billion$6.5 billion
FY29E adjusted EBITDA margin1.7%-7.0%

Source: Macquarie Research, August 2026. FY29E figures are Macquarie estimates.

Blinkit had nearly twice the number of orders and dark stores in FY26, while its adjusted EBITDA loss was far smaller.

Macquarie therefore sees “a far stronger probability of success for Blinkit than Instamart.”

But that does not make Blinkit a straightforward earnings story. The brokerage believes competition will keep forcing companies to invest in store density, customer acquisition and delivery capacity.

“In Quick Commerce, we continue to see persistent loss-making economics amid broadening competition; in food delivery we see margins near peak levels,” Macquarie said.

The concern is therefore not whether customers will continue using quick commerce. It is whether the incremental order will generate enough profit after all the costs of fulfilling it.

Future quick-commerce profits priced in by market

Macquarie estimates that around $2 billion of value is already being assigned to Instamart, despite a street assessment of zero or negative value.

For Eternal, the brokerage estimates that the current market capitalisation implies around $15-20 billion of value for Blinkit, depending on whether Street or Macquarie estimates are used.

That makes the valuation debate more demanding.

A business does not have to stop growing for its stock to disappoint. If the growth is already reflected in the valuation, even strong execution may not be enough if margins arrive below expectations.

That is particularly relevant for Blinkit, where Macquarie expects rapid NOV growth but only a 1.7% adjusted EBITDA margin by FY29.

Food delivery healthy but margin ceiling is getting closer

Macquarie is more comfortable with food delivery than quick commerce, but it does not see unlimited room for margin expansion.

For Eternal, food-delivery GOV is estimated to rise to around $6 billion by FY29  from $5.2 billion in FY26, with adjusted EBITDA margin at about 5.4%.

For Swiggy, food-delivery GOV is expected to increase from $3.9 billion to $5.6 billion, while adjusted EBITDA margin is projected to improve from 2.9% to 4%.

Food-delivery metricEternalSwiggy
FY26 monthly transacting users24.3 million17.5 million
FY26 orders980 million714 million
FY26 GOV$5.2 billion$3.9 billion
FY26 adjusted EBITDA margin~4%2.9%
FY29E GOV$6.0 billion$5.6 billion
FY29E adjusted EBITDA margin~5.4%4.0%

Source: Macquarie Research, August 2026.

The brokerage estimates current overall take rates at around 26% of order value and believes food-delivery margins are close to peak levels.

Swiggy Ltd. also trails Eternal on adjusted EBITDA margin. Macquarie estimates the gap at around 120 basis points, largely because of the difference in scale, although contribution economics per order are broadly similar.

Eternal’s Blinkit business is growing faster than its margins

Macquarie expects Blinkit NOV to increase from $5.5 billion in FY26 to $13 billion by FY29.

Orders are projected to rise from 917 million to 2.45 billion, while the number of dark stores is expected to increase from 2,243 to 4,500.

Yet adjusted EBITDA margin is forecast to move only from -0.6% to 1.7%.

That is the tension running through the Eternal thesis. Blinkit can more than double its NOV, but the profitability improvement remains modest relative to the scale of the business.

For Eternal’s food-delivery business, Macquarie expects NOV to increase from $4.3 billion in FY26 to $6 billion by FY29, while adjusted EBITDA margin remains broadly stable around 5.3-5.4%.

Instamart faces the tougher path to profitability

Swiggy’s Instamart is also expected to grow quickly, but Macquarie sees a much longer road to profitability.

InstamartFY26FY27EFY28EFY29E
GOV ($ billion)3.23.85.16.5
Adjusted EBITDA margin-12.5%-9.8%-7.7%-7.0%

Source: Macquarie Research, August 2026.

The business therefore becomes less loss-making as it grows, but does not reach adjusted EBITDA profitability within Macquarie‘s forecast period.

That is a major difference from Blinkit, where the brokerage expects the business to move into positive adjusted EBITDA territory.

For Swiggy, food delivery is consequently doing more of the work in supporting the overall business while Instamart remains a significant drag.

Macquarie’s valuation leaves limited comfort

Macquarie’s fair-value framework gives Eternal Ltd. Rs 100 per share for Food Delivery, Rs 100 for Blinkit, Rs 13 for District and Rs 13 for net cash, resulting in a fair value of Rs 225.

For Swiggy, the brokerage assigns Rs 190 per share to Food Delivery, Rs 25 to Quick Commerce and Rs 12 to net cash, taking fair value to Rs 230.

Valuation componentEternalSwiggy
Food DeliveryRs 100Rs 190
Quick CommerceRs 100Rs 25
District/otherRs 13—
Net cashRs 13Rs 12
Fair valueRs 225Rs 230

Source: Macquarie Research.

The difference is telling. Blinkit accounts for a much larger share of Eternal’s valuation, while Swiggy remains substantially dependent on the value of its food-delivery business.

ALSO READ

Eternal Vs Swiggy: What could change Macquarie’s’s view?

The key variable is not simply order growth. It is the relationship between growth, competition and fully accounted profitability.

Macquarie’s view would become more constructive if quick-commerce businesses demonstrate that they can achieve materially better margins without sacrificing growth or having to keep spending heavily to defend market share.

For now, the brokerage sees the competitive environment staying difficult.

“On a relative basis, we see a far stronger probability of success for Blinkit than Instamart,” Macquarie said.

ALSO READ

That is perhaps the most important distinction in the report. Eternal has the stronger quick-commerce asset, but Macquarie still does not believe that strength is enough to justify a positive rating.

The brokerage has therefore kept ‘Underperform’ on both stocks while assigning a higher target to Eternal.

Macquarie’s key numbers

EternalSwiggy
Rating‘Underperform’‘Underperform’
Price targetRs 225Rs 230
FY26 Food Delivery GOV$5.2 billion$3.9 billion
FY26 Quick Commerce NOV/GOV$5.5 billion$3.2 billion
FY29E Food Delivery GOV$6.0 billion$5.6 billion
FY29E Quick Commerce NOV/GOV$13.0 billion$6.5 billion
FY29E Food Delivery adj. EBITDA margin~5.4%4.0%
FY29E Quick Commerce adj. EBITDA margin1.7%-7.0%

Source: Macquarie Research, August 19, 2026.

Conclusion 

The quick-commerce race is therefore still firmly about growth, but Macquarie’s numbers signal intense competition among the key players. : The street will watch out for which brand can turn billions of dollars of orders into durable profits without having to spend billions more to keep customers coming back.

Disclaimer: This article is based on a Macquarie Equity Research report. The ratings, price targets, estimates, forecasts and views cited are those of Macquarie and have been attributed to the brokerage. They do not constitute independent investment advice or a recommendation by The Financial Express or the author to buy, sell or hold any security. The article is intended for informational and journalistic purposes. Readers should independently assess the risks and consult a SEBI-registered investment adviser before making investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future returns.