Innovist revenue 2.8X, pre-tax profit Rs 30.5 Cr
Innovist, operated by Onesto Labs, nearly tripled operating revenue to Rs 685.7 crore in FY26 and swung from a Rs 55 lakh pre-tax loss to Rs 30.5 crore of pre-tax profit. Falling input cost, not restraint on advertising, paid for the growth.
- Operating revenue rose to Rs 685.7 crore in FY26 from Rs 246.7 crore, about 2.78 times, on consolidated RoC figures for Innovist, operated by Onesto Labs.
- Profit before tax was Rs 30.5 crore against an FY25 loss before tax of Rs 55 lakh. Tax was a Rs 8.9 crore charge, so no tax credit created this profit.
- Advertising reached Rs 262 crore, about 38 per cent of revenue, funded by materials falling from about 32 per cent of revenue to about 24 per cent.
- The 87 per cent profit growth in the headline has no FY25 profit figure behind it in the source, and no other income line is disclosed.
Innovist, the beauty and personal care company operated by Onesto Labs, grew revenue from operations to Rs 685.7 crore in FY26 from Rs 246.7 crore, about 2.78 times. Entrackr, reporting the filing on 20 October 2026, cites consolidated statements sourced from the Registrar of Companies. The 2.8X is on operating revenue, not total income: product sales gave Rs 676.3 crore and other operating revenue, mainly shipping and scrap, Rs 9.4 crore.
Profit before tax was Rs 30.5 crore against a loss before tax of Rs 55 lakh a year earlier. Tax took Rs 8.9 crore, including Rs 7.8 crore of deferred tax, leaving net profit of Rs 21.5 crore. That sequence rules something out: the profit is not the work of a tax credit, because tax was a charge.
Entrackr’s headline says profit grew 87 per cent. The body carries no FY25 profit figure to measure against, and a year closing in a pre-tax loss cannot yield a comparable profit without a tax credit the summary never mentions. Treat the 87 per cent as unverified. The swing from pre-tax loss to Rs 30.5 crore is what stands.
Advertising reached Rs 262 crore from Rs 84.2 crore, around 38 per cent of operating revenue and 40 per cent of total cost. Commissions to sole selling agents went from Rs 15 crore to Rs 92 crore. Both outran revenue. Input cost paid for them: materials rose only to Rs 162 crore from Rs 79 crore, slipping from about 32 per cent of revenue to about 24 per cent, while employee cost went Rs 19 crore to Rs 39 crore. Total expenses of Rs 662 crore work out to about 96 paise per rupee of revenue, against roughly Rs 1.01 before.
Gross margin, not thrift, bought the marketing. That is the lever worth copying, and the one a CAC payback period model misses. Two gaps belong on record. No other income line is disclosed, yet operating revenue less total expenses falls about Rs 6.8 crore short of the stated pre-tax profit, so near a fifth of it sits outside the disclosed lines. With no FY25 net profit given, no net margin comparison is possible either. Current assets were Rs 303 crore including Rs 81 crore cash, the balance sheet that shapes D2C brand acquisition readiness. Wellbeing Nutrition filed the same week with revenue doubling into a wider loss.
Zane’s analysis draws on original reporting by Entrackr. Read the original report.