India Markets open in 8 hrs 37 mins

Despite revenues far apart, Grofers and Bigbasket have comparable losses

Sandeep Soni

Online grocery delivery startup Bigbasket, started in 2011, has been able to retain a dominant lead over its rival Grofers that was started just two years later.

Bigbasket has added more than Rs 1,000 crore in revenue in FY18 to Rs 1,605 crore from Rs 580 crore in FY16 vis-a-vis merely around Rs 40 crore added by Grofers to its FY16 revenue of Rs 14.3 crore to take it to Rs 53.5 crore mark in FY18, showed regulatory filings source by business signals platform Paper.vc.

Interestingly, despite the massive gap between the revenues of two startups, started almost around the same time, Bigbasket has managed to contain its losses to Rs 310 crore in FY18. This is quite comparable to Rs 258 crore losses posted by Grofers in the same fiscal year.

The fall in losses is marginal from FY17 as Grofers cut losses by Rs 10 crore from Rs 268 crore in FY17 while Bigbasket narrowed the amount by around Rs 3 crore from Rs 313 crore.

Importantly, Bigbasket has raised $885.7 million so far against $241.8 million raised by Grofers since inception, as per deals tracker Crunchbase.

In a separate development, Grofers raised $60 million from its existing investors including SoftBank Vision fund, Tiger Global Management and Sequoia Capital in Series F round of funding, showed its regulatory filings sourced by business signals platform Paper.vc.

The new round gives the six-year-old company $424 million post-money valuation. The current round saw the issuance of 11.4 lakh shares out of which 7.1 lakh were issued to SoftBank, which put $37.5 million, followed by 3.8 lakh shares to Tiger Global that contributed $20 million while the rest came from Sequoia.

Bigbasket, which raised $300 million in Series E funding led by Alibaba Group, is most likely to turn unicorn with the new fundraising that might push its valuation beyond $1 billion.

Online grocery delivery business has been tough for startups due to a wafer-thin margin of less than 10 per cent and high marketing costs. The biggest casualty in the sector has been Peppertap that was shut down in 2016 after raising $51 million.