This is an exercise in the format, written from public figures only. Blinkit is part of Eternal, a listed company, so nobody invests in it on its own, and nothing here is investment advice. The point is to show how I structure a memo: every claim tied to a number, and a written condition for changing my mind.
The business in one sentence
Blinkit delivers groceries and everyday goods in minutes from a network of small urban warehouses, called dark stores, placed close to where customers live.
The numbers
| Measure | Figure | Period |
|---|---|---|
| Dark stores | 2,243 | End of the March 2026 quarter |
| Net order value | ₹14,386 crore | March 2026 quarter |
| Adjusted EBITDA | ₹37 crore | March 2026 quarter |
| Monthly transacting users | About 27.2 million | March 2026 quarter |
| Average order value | ₹525 | March 2026 quarter |
| Orders | About 274 million | March 2026 quarter |
Derived: an adjusted EBITDA margin of about 0.26% of order value, about ₹1.35 per order, and roughly 1,350 orders per store per day. The working is in quick commerce in India.
Why now
The business has just crossed from losses to adjusted profit at a network of over 2,000 stores, which is the first evidence that the model works at scale. Its nearest competitor, Zepto, reported a FY25 loss of ₹3,367 crore, so the leader has reached profitability while a rival is still spending heavily.
What has to be true
- Store density keeps rising, so newer stores reach the order volume of established ones.
- Average order value grows as the range widens beyond daily essentials.
- Advertising sold to brands becomes a meaningful second income per order.
- Competitors pull back on discounting, so the category stops paying customers to switch.
- Delivery cost per order holds or falls as density rises.
The risks
- Margin. At about ₹1.35 per order, a small rise in cost or fall in order value returns the business to loss.
- Competition. A well-funded rival can keep discounts high for longer than the leader would like.
- Expansion. New stores in thinner areas start far below average density and pull the network margin down.
- Regulation. Rules on dark stores, pricing or labour could raise costs across the category.
What would make me walk away
If adjusted EBITDA per order turns negative for two consecutive quarters while order volume keeps growing, the profitability was temporary. If average order value falls, the category is growing by adding small, low-margin orders. Either would change my view, and writing that down before the next results is the investing version of the stop rule in my Push and Absorb framework.
The view
The bull case is a dense, profitable network that earns more per order over time from range and advertising. The bear case is a business that is profitable only at its current density, in a category where competitors can buy share. On public numbers the model has proved it can work; it has not yet proved how much it can earn per order.
The same format, applied to marketplaces generally, is in marketplace metrics that flatter.
