Zepto vs Blinkit vs Instamart — Market Share, Revenue & Profit – A Case Study (2024–20265)

India’s quick-commerce market (10–60 minute grocery delivery) has consolidated quickly around three leaders: Blinkit (Zomato/Eternal), Zepto, and Swiggy Instamart. Together they control the lion’s share of quick commerce in big metros. Blinkit has led in market share and rapid GOV/revenue growth, Zepto has raised huge capital to expand aggressively, and Instamart (Swiggy) has focused on integration with its larger food-delivery ecosystem — but profitability remains elusive for all as growth and market share were prioritized over margin in 2024–25. 

---

1. Why this matters

Quick commerce grew from a niche convenience play to a core battleground for grocery and daily-needs sales. As consumers in big Indian metros moved to instant fulfilment, platforms scaled dark stores, logistics, and discounts — changing customer expectations and the economics of grocery retail. For investors, founders, and operators, understanding market share, revenue trends and profit dynamics of the big three is essential to planning strategy or evaluating investment. (Market sizing and consolidation evidence). 

---

2. Market snapshot (2024–mid-2025)

• Market size: Industry reports and government/agency summaries put the online grocery/quick commerce market in the billions (USD) and growing fast year-on-year. Quick commerce accounted for a very large share of e-grocery order volume in 2024, with analysts forecasting continued double-digit growth. 

• Market concentration: Several reports show Blinkit, Zepto and Instamart collectively capturing the majority (>80%) of quick-commerce volume in India’s larger cities — reinforcing that competition is mainly among these three.

---

3. The three contenders — at a glance

Blinkit (Eternal / acquired by Zomato earlier)

Positioning: Market leader in quick commerce (integrated into Zomato / Eternal’s ecosystem).
Market share & scale: Multiple industry analyses in 2024–25 placed Blinkit as the largest player by market share (reported figures have ranged around the mid-40s % in some industry snapshots).
Revenue & growth: Blinkit’s GOV and revenue jumped sharply in FY24–FY25, with quarters showing strong YoY GOV growth and accelerated revenue recognition as Blinkit scaled up orders. Zomato’s consolidated disclosures note the importance of quick commerce to group revenues and disclose Blinkit’s contribution after consolidation.
Profitability: Blinkit has moved from pure growth to improving unit economics, but like peers it still navigates heavy discounts and fulfilment costs; profitability is improving but not yet consistently positive at scale.

Zepto

Positioning: Rapidly scaled metro-focused dark-store network and product assortment; investor-backed with very large funding rounds.
Market share & scale: Industry snapshots in 2024–25 put Zepto as the second-largest by share (high-teens to high-20s % range across reports), with a particularly strong presence in top metros and higher SKU assortments.

Funding & valuation: Zepto raised north of $1 billion in 2024 and follow-on rounds in 2025 as it chased expansion — inflows intended to defend and regain market share. These rounds underlined investor belief in Zepto’s growth potential even as the sector invested heavily.
Profitability: Zepto has focused on aggressive expansion and customer acquisition; like peers, margins are compressed by fulfilment and discounting — profitability remains a forward objective tied to scale and operational efficiencies.

Instamart (Swiggy)

Positioning: Quick commerce integrated inside Swiggy’s existing food delivery and marketplace ecosystem — benefits from cross-sell and existing demand signals.
Market share & scale: Instamart is consistently reported among the top three, with market share estimates typically in the 20–30% band depending on the source and time period. Swiggy’s financials show meaningful revenue and GOV contribution from Instamart as the company invested in dark stores. 
Profitability: Swiggy’s public financials show rising losses attributed in part to heavy investment in quick commerce, indicating Instamart’s growth strategy still prioritised market share and capacity expansion over immediate profits

---

4. Revenue — what the public numbers show (selected highlights)

Important: Quick-commerce revenue disclosure practices vary — listed parents consolidate or report GOVs, and startups often disclose selective metrics. Below are representative, sourced highlights rather than an absolute consolidated P&L.

• Blinkit (Zomato/Eternal): Quarterly disclosures and market reporting in 2024–25 documented strong GOV growth and rising revenue recognition after consolidation; Blinkit reported rapid YoY GOV increases and quarter-on-quarter revenue acceleration as it scaled. (See Zomato’s FY24 consolidation notes and subsequent corporate updates).

• Swiggy Instamart: Swiggy’s public filings and press coverage show Instamart driving a significant share of new revenue growth — Swiggy reported a sharp increase in revenue from operations and a doubling of Instamart’s GOV in recent quarters, while overall losses widened due to investment into quick commerce capacity. Example: a Reuters report flagged a substantial qtr loss tied to quick commerce investments while revenue surged

• Zepto: As a private startup, Zepto selectively reported its fundraising and growth metrics. The company publicly raised large financing rounds in 2024 and 2025 intended to accelerate expansion; industry commentary places Zepto’s revenue growth as rapid but still secondary to Blinkit in total market share in many metros. 

---

5. Profitability & unit economics: why the race is expensive

All three companies face similar structural cost pressures:

• Last-mile fulfilment cost (pick + pack + delivery) is high for sub-hour grocery orders.

• Customer acquisition & discounts: Frequent discounts and free/cheap delivery to win customers compress unit margins.

• Dark store density: To ensure speed, companies must keep many small fulfilment centers which increases fixed costs.

Public filings and reputable news analysis show the result: rapid revenue growth but wider headline losses when firms invest to expand capacity and market share (examples: Swiggy’s widened loss while Instamart scaled). The sector’s profitability path depends on increasing basket sizes, reducing per-order fulfilment costs, and shifting customers away from heavy discount dependence.

---

6. Strategic differences & competitive moats

• Blinkit: Benefit — early mover advantage in many cities, strong marketing and ad tech (helped by Zomato/Eternal distribution), focused on reducing ACoS and improving unit economics.

• Zepto: Benefit — massive capital to grow dark store density and SKU breadth quickly; targets premium metros and often shows high customer LTV in those markets.

• Instamart (Swiggy): Benefit — integrated demand funnel (food orders → grocery), cross-sell, and large existing user base; able to leverage Swiggy’s logistics and merchant relationships.

Each firm’s moat depends on optimizing dark-store networks, building loyal customers (reducing coupon-sensitivity), and improving gross margins via assortment & pricing strategies.

---

7. Case study comparison (practical metrics to watch)

If you’re evaluating or benchmarking these players, prioritize tracking these KPIs:

• Gross Order Value (GOV) and Revenue growth — indicates demand and scale. (Blinkit & Instamart showed rapid GOV rises). 

• Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) and retention (repeat rate) — low retention makes growth unsustainable.

• Average order value (AOV) — higher AOV helps cross subsidies of fulfilment.

• Fulfilment cost per order & dark store density — operational levers for margin.

• Contribution margin per order — how close to break-even on core order economics.

• Unit economics over time (3–6 months cohorts) — to test whether discounts are generating valuable repeat customers.

---

8. Risks & headwinds

• Sustainability of discount-led growth: heavy discounting is expensive and may not create sticky customers.

• Tier-2 / 3 market economics: quick commerce is harder to scale profitably outside dense urban geographies.

• Regulation & taxes: GST classifications, local retail rules, and marketplace regulation may affect profitability.

• Margin pressures & capital cycle: with investor patience variable, firms must show improving unit economics or face capital constraints. Reuters and market reports flagged the large losses firms reported while expanding.

---

9. What operators & investors should do (recommended playbook)

• Prioritize unit economics: focus on increasing AOV (bundles, subscriptions), reduce per-order fulfilment cost (micro-fulfilment, route optimization).

• Customer retention > new customers: move from coupon acquisition to loyalty (subscriptions, membership).

• Geography selection: concentrate on dense urban micro-markets before expanding broadly.

• Assortment & vertical focus: proprietary SKUs, private labels and higher margin categories help raise GMV per order.

• Data-driven operations: use heatmaps, demand forecasting and dynamic routing to cut waste.

---

10. Conclusion: who’s winning — and what “winning” means

• Market share: Blinkit often appears as the market leader by share in multiple 2024–25 industry snapshots; Zepto and Instamart closely contest #2 and #3 depending on city and quarter.

• Revenue growth: All three grew revenue and GOV fast in 2024–25; Blinkit and Instamart posted notable quarter-on-quarter GOV and revenue acceleration. 

• Profitability: None emerged broadly profitable in 2024–25 — the sector still trades growth for coverage and customer acquisition. The path to real “winning” is profitable scale: higher AOVs, better retention and lower fulfilment cost per order.

Bottom line: quick commerce is consolidated around Blinkit, Zepto and Instamart, and while revenue and GOV growth have been impressive, the industry’s real test in the next 12–24 months is whether these players can turn that growth into durable profit.