The last time you noticed your Swiggy or Zomato order costing a little more than expected, you probably blamed a restaurant price revision or a last-minute surge in platform fee. The next time it happens, it could be due to the recent fuel price hike.
The nearly 4% hike in petrol and diesel prices can result in an almost 12% earnings downgrade for Swiggy. The risk of downgrade is there for Eternal too, albeit relatively lower at 4-5%. This is as per a note by Elara Securities.
But consumers may have to bear the brunt of a price increase.
Fuel price contribution in average delivery cost for Eternal, Swiggy
To understand the exposure, consider how delivery economics work. Elara estimates that the average delivery cost per order runs at roughly Rs 44 for Eternal and Rs 55 for Swiggy. Swiggy has a higher cost to bear because of less penetration in terms of dark stores and a restaurant network generated per delivery partner. Fuel is assumed to account for about 20% of that cost, putting the implied fuel expenditure at roughly Rs 9–10 per order on a blended basis.
Eternal Vs Swiggy: How fuel price hike will impact quick commerce margins
At the current hike of 4%, the per-order fuel impact works out to approximately Rs 0.44. Now, this might seem like a very small amount, but keep in mind that Eternal handles close to 2.7 billion orders annually across food delivery and quick commerce. Swiggy processes roughly 1.4 billion. The aggregate EBITDA drag at the current fuel hike level is estimated at around Rs 66.4 crore for Eternal and Rs 43.5 crore for Swiggy for FY27, as per the report.
Neither company collapses under this weight. But the Elara note flags a more uncomfortable scenario: if fuel prices were to climb further to Rs 10 per litre, higher than current levels, over the next three to six months, which the report said is plausible given where crude is trading. The per-order impact rises to Rs 1–1.2.
The adjusted EBITDA impact, accounting for the share of orders delivered by electric vehicles and cycles, could reach Rs 100–200 crore, translating into a 4–5% earnings downgrade for Eternal and a 10–12% downgrade for Swiggy.
Why Swiggy is more exposed to price hike risk
Swiggy is still on the road to breakeven in quick commerce. Its adjusted EBITDA for food delivery and quick commerce combined sits at negative Rs 93.59 crore, compared to Eternal’s positive Rs 3,574.6 crore. That gap means Swiggy has considerably less room to absorb cost shocks before they either eat into its glide path to profitability or get passed on, as per Elara report.
Eternal, by contrast, has what the Elara note describes as a “more premium and less price-sensitive customer base.” That demographic profile gives the company greater latitude to recover costs through platform fee adjustments, delivery charge optimisation and handling fees without triggering the kind of order drop-off that would make the cure worse than the disease.
There is also the question of advertising revenue. In the current model for both platforms, ad income from restaurant and brand partners has become a meaningful cushion against operational cost variability. Eternal’s scale in this area gives it a buffer that Swiggy is still building.
The consumer pays one way or another
When fuel costs rise, the impact gets distributed across three parties: delivery partners, the platform itself, and the end consumer. The proportion each absorbs depends on competitive dynamics, the sensitivity of the customer base, and how tight delivery partner supply is at any given moment.
For consumers, this plays out in ways that are easy to miss. A Rs 5 increase in delivery fee, a platform fee that nudges up by Rs 3, and a handling charge that wasn’t there last month would not be easily noticed by many.
Quick commerce is particularly interesting to watch here. The category has grown on the back of impulse purchases and convenience premiums, with consumers willing to pay slightly more for the certainty of 10-minute delivery. That willingness has a threshold. If fuel costs push delivery fees up meaningfully, the frequency of smaller basket orders may moderate. A Rs 79 delivery fee on a Rs 200 impulse grocery run starts to feel like a poor bargain, the report said.
The second-order risks are larger than the first
When fuel prices stay elevated for months, they compress household discretionary budgets. That does not kill food delivery overnight, but it does shift behaviour at the margin. Order frequency softens. Consumers trade down, opting for lower-priced restaurants, skipping add-ons, or consolidating orders to reduce per-order fees. The premium restaurant and D2C segments, which have been important drivers of both order value and ad revenue for platforms, feel this first.
Furthermore, smaller standalone eateries and regional chains do not have the pricing power of national quick-service brands. Rising fuel costs flow into their supply chains, cooking gas, ingredient logistics, and packaging, often before they can be absorbed or passed on. When margins compress at the restaurant level, marketing and advertising budgets on aggregator platforms are among the first things cut.
D2C brands selling through quick commerce platforms face a similar squeeze. Higher logistics and input costs may force them to reduce spending on platform promotions..
The EV buffer — real, but partial
Both Eternal and Swiggy have been pushing EV adoption among their delivery partner fleets, and this acts as a genuine partial hedge. The Elara note estimates EV penetration at roughly 40% in quick commerce, where short, dense delivery routes make the economics work, and around 20% in food delivery. On a blended basis, approximately 30% of orders are estimated to be delivered by electric or non-motorised means, insulating them entirely from petrol price movements.
Eternal, Swiggy: What to watch for
The Elara note maintains a BUY rating on both Eternal, with a target price of Rs 400 from the current price of Rs 243, implying an upside of 65% and Swiggy with a target price of Rs 360 from the current price of Rs 257, implying an upside of 40%, with a stated preference for Eternal. The investment thesis rests partly on the view that the current fuel cost headwind is manageable and that Eternal’s structural advantages, like scale, ad revenue, and customer profile, will make it more resilient.
