The Lenskart listing has put the spotlight on the eyewear retail segment. If we look at the Q2 focus, the two leading players in the real eyewear space- Lenskart and Titan Eyewear. Lenskart, a recent stock market debutant, is betting on testing, fast delivery and local manufacturing, while Titan EyeCare kept its focus on trained optometrists, consistent dispensing and online-to-store transition
The big question is which is a better bet – Titan’s service-led retail model ot Lenskart’s technology- and automation-driven scale.
But before we proceed further,here is a quick look at how the share price has performed for each. Lenkart stock listed at Rs 390 on the NSE, entering 3% lower than the issue price of Rs 402. The share has declined 2.23% in the last 1 month. Titan, meanwhile, delivered 0.99% in the last month. However, over the last 1 year, this Tata Group stock has delivered 10.85% returns.
Lenskart vs Titan Eyewear: The market each company sees ahead
Peyush Bansal, Co-founder and CEO of Lenskart, during the company’s Q2 FY26 concall, said the firm’s mission starts with a simple question: “How do we get vision correction and a high-quality pair of glasses accessible to everyone?” He said the opportunity remains untapped, adding, “Almost half of India today, more than 750 million people need vision correction.” According to Lenskart’s shareholder letter and investor presentation, the Indian eyewear space is pegged at around $9.2 billion.
NS Raghavan, CEO of Titan EyeCare, during Titan’s Q2 FY26 earnings call, said the segment is still underserved. He said, “…the headroom to grow is tremendous. We estimate the market to be around Rs 30,000 crores… and Titan’s share is less than 12%.” Titan’s investor presentation echoes this view of a large market shaped by prescription-led buyers.
Lenskart vs Titan Eyewear: Business model and approach
Lenskart’s big bet is testing, automation and dense expansion. According to Lenskart’s shareholder letter and con-call, the company continues to draw new users into the category through accessible testing. Bansal said, “In H1 FY26, we conducted 9.3 million eye tests in India… 46% of these were first-time users.” He linked the discovery of latent demand to store location decisions and affordability.
Expansion follows the same direction. Bansal, during the con-call, said Lenskart relies on its internal model, GeoIQ, noting, “Our AI platform GeoIQ analyses 3000 plus variables to identify optical locations, ensuring disciplined expansion and low paybacks.” According to the shareholder letter, Lenskart added 203 net new stores in India in the first half and expanded to 431 cities.
Titan, meanwhile, is betting on eye care, including optometry, staff training and omnichannel. According to Titan’s Q2 FY26 investor presentation, EyeCare remains anchored in prescription-led demand, relying on trained optometrists and fitting labs. Raghavan, during Titan Company’s earnings call, said the division is strengthening its digital funnel, explaining, “We are transitioning into omni-channel… the first touch point is always your website.” He said accuracy remains central to the product, adding, “…both vision and fashion is equally important… we need to ensure that we do a fantastic job in terms of bringing out the right prescription.” He said Titan would “continue to invest in having the right kind of people at the stores.”
Lenskart vs Titan Eyewear: Store expansion
A look now at how the reach compares for both eyewear retailers. Titan’s investor presentation lists 871 exclusive EyeCare stores as of September 2025, with delivery typically routed through fitting labs on a two- to three-day cycle.
Lenskart also said it uses remote eye testing in more than 500 stores and delivers next-day in 58 cities, with a two-hour service active in international markets like Singapore.
Lenskart vs Titan Eyewear: Cost structure and manufacturing
According to Lenskart’s con-call and shareholder letter, the company’s product margin for Q2 was 69.2%, supported by in-house manufacturing and automation. Management said producing frames locally provides a 35%–40% cost advantage, and the company manufactured nearly four million frames during the first half.
Titan EyeCare does not cite any similar structural cost benefit. Its investor presentation stresses optometrist capability, retail execution and fitting lab processes rather than automated production.
Lenskart vs Titan Eyewear: Overall Q2FY26 performance
Lenskart’s Q2 FY26 consolidated revenue for the quarter was Rs 2,146.6 crore, up 24% year-on-year. EBITDA was Rs 425.8 crore with a xxxx margin of 19.8%. According to the shareholder letter, the EBITDA margin in H1 FY26 increased to 19.5% from 17.3%.
According to Titan’s Q2 FY26 data, EyeCare domestic total income rose to Rs 215 crore from Rs 199 crore. Segment EBIT fell to Rs 12 crore from Rs 24 crore, with the margin slipping to roughly 5.3%–5.7%.
Lenskart vs Titan Eyewear: The GST pause
According to both companies’ disclosures, buyers delayed purchases in September ahead of the GST cut. Bansal, during Lenskart’s con-call, said demand bounced back once prices were adjusted, noting, “Because we passed the GST benefit to the consumers, we have seen very, very strong demand.” Titan said in its investor presentation that the segment’s growth moderated in September for the same reason.
Lenskart vs Titan Eyewear: What’s the final verdict
Therefore, in conclusion, choosing one over the other may not be very straightforward. Lenskart’s documents point to a model that grows by expanding the base of first-time prescription users through testing, automation and rapid rollout. Titan EyeCare’s documents point to a business built on trained staff, prescription accuracy and gradual omnichannel work. Their Q2 results reinforce that split, Lenskart reported stronger margins and faster operational leverage, while Titan EyeCare reported a decline in profit despite higher footfall.
Both see large headroom, but their approaches remain distinct. One is scaling through technology and manufacturing; the other relies on optometry-led retail and service consistency.