Decoding Swish’s Appeal: Structural Control, QCom, New Investment Cycle, and More

Venture capital has had its own ebbs and flows caused by India’s consumer cycles. The first wave of food delivery platforms, such as Zomato and Swiggy, scaled rapidly, raising billions, and went public. 

Today, a new set of companies, including hyper-local, kitchen-first platforms like Swish, are attracting large cheques, despite operating in what appears to be an already “solved” category, according to laymen. What exactly are investors seeing that others don’t?

On the surface, the model is familiar: app-based discovery, limited-radius delivery, and standardised menus cooked from cloud kitchens. But experts say that what looks rudimentary is actually structurally different.

Reported Fresh Funding

Fresh reports have emerged that Swish is on its way to raise USD 30-35 million (~INR 272-317 crore) led by Bain Capital Ventures, along with existing investors including Accel. This is according to an Economic Times report, citing people familiar with the matter. 

The funding round, if announced, will take the startup’s valuation up to USD 100-120 million, double the value at which it raised INR 122 crore led by Hara Global and Accel. 

“The significant mark-up reflects the growth in the business,” said another person, who declined to be named, according to the report. 

The company currently operates hyper-local kitchens across the country’s tech capital, in popular demographic areas such as Indiragar, HSR Layout, Bellandur, Koramangala, and Sarjapur. 

Sumit Dutta, Founder and Managing Partner at Unwind Ventures, argues that investor appetite for Swish-like platforms stems from structural control.

“In the traditional model (Zomato/Swiggy), the platform is an intermediary. They don’t control the kitchen speed, the food quality, or the packaging. The problem? Aggregators lose money on small orders because they have to split a 20-30 per cent commission with a restaurant that also needs to make a profit,” said Dutta.

Dutta attributes Swish’s advantage to ownership of its “Delight Centres”, its vertically integrated cloud kitchens.

“Swish captures the entire value chain. Instead of a 25 per cent commission, they enjoy a 60-70 per cent gross margin because they are both the manufacturer and the distributor. Investors see a path to profitability at much lower average order values (AOV) than traditional aggregators,” Dutta explains. 

The logic looks to be straightforward: control production, control margins. Aggregator marketplaces structurally face take-rate ceilings. Full-stack operators do not.

According to Aniket Shah, one of the co-founders at Swish, the real differentiator lies in Swish’s end-to-end control. “We deliver fresh food in 10 minutes, but we do not aggregate anything. We own the supply chain, the delivery fleet, the kitchen, and the consumer brand.” By operating only in dense demand clusters, Swish can predict consumption patterns and make the economics work.

Capital Discipline After the Burn

Between 2020 and 2022, Indian startups collectively raised over USD 100 billion, according to industry data from Venture Intelligence and Tracxn. Foodtech was one of the significant beneficiaries. However, post-2022, funding dipped sharply. Total VC funding into Indian startups fell by over 35-40 per cent in 2023 from peak 2021 levels, forcing a reset toward unit economics and cash-flow visibility.

Zomato, after listing in 2021, reported improving contribution margins and turned profitable at the consolidated level in FY24. Its quick-commerce arm Blinkit reported positive contribution margins in several quarters. Swiggy, which was listed in 2024, has similarly focused on narrowing losses and improving EBITDA at the city level.

Investors learned that scale without control of the value chain leads to protracted burn. It is against this backdrop that platforms like Swish are being funded.

Aniket said in an earlier interview with Entrepreneur India that as order volumes increase and penetration deepens within micro-markets, the team expects more locations to follow suit. “A lot of our kitchens are already profitable today. The next phase is simple, more micro-market expansion.” 

Precedent Models: Zepto, Rebel Foods, and the Quick-Commerce Playbook

Investors seem to be referencing adjacent successes. Zepto scaled to a multibillion-dollar valuation by optimising 10-15 minute grocery delivery through dense dark-store networks. By the end of 2024, the Qcommerce company claimed to improve store-level EBITDA. The insight: hyperlocal density drives operating leverage. Zepto has also showcased its franchising capabilities, with its dark store up for grabs through a franchise-owned-franchise-operated model, bringing more cash flow into the mix. 

Similarly, Rebel Foods built brands like Faasos and Behrouz Biryani using a cloud-kitchen network across multiple countries. Rebel demonstrated that owning kitchen infrastructure and creating digital-first brands can yield repeatable margins without prime real estate costs.

A partner at a early stage VC firm who said, “VCs are no longer funding top-line growth; they are funding operating systems. The founders who understand kitchen throughput, rider routing algorithms, and SKU rationalisation win. It’s more manufacturing science than marketplace arbitrage.”

Broader Capital Cycle Context

With fintech and SaaS valuations compressing and public exits moderating, consumer product plays are back in focus. India’s urban consumption story remains intact, with rising disposable income, increasing dual-income households, and time scarcity in Tier I and Tier II cities.

According to RedSeer data, India’s online food delivery market is expected to cross USD 20 billion in gross order value over the next few years, with a double-digit CAGR. Even incremental share gains in that pool can validate aggressive early-stage bets.

The conclusion is this: Swish does not look revolutionary, yet it looks operational. And that may be precisely why investors are comfortable writing larger cheques.