Rebel Foods FY26 revenue Rs 1,951.6 crore, loss narrows
Rebel Foods grew FY26 revenue 21 percent and cut its loss 16 percent. The line worth your attention is brokerage and commissions at Rs 317.7 crore, which is 16.3 percent of revenue going to the aggregator layer.
- FY26 operating revenue was Rs 1,951.6 crore against Rs 1,617.4 crore in FY25, a rise of 20.7 percent that the report rounds to 21 percent. The headline rounds revenue itself to Rs 1,952 crore; the precise figure in the body is Rs 1,951.6 crore.
- Net loss narrowed to Rs 281.8 crore from Rs 336.6 crore, a reduction of 16.3 percent, reported as 16 percent. Total expenditure rose 14.1 percent to Rs 2,265.9 crore, slower than the 20.7 percent revenue rise, and cost per rupee of revenue fell to Rs 1.16 from Rs 1.23.
- Brokerage and commissions of Rs 317.7 crore equal 16.3 percent of operating revenue and grew 31 percent in the year, faster than revenue. That sits next to an EBITDA loss of Rs 105.7 crore and an EBITDA margin of negative 5.4 percent.
- Outlet or kitchen count is absent from the reported numbers, and so are per-brand unit economics for the six brands. Revenue per kitchen and per-brand commission load cannot be derived from this disclosure and are not estimated here.
Rebel Foods, the cloud kitchen operator behind Faasos, Behrouz Biryani, The Good Bowl, LunchBox, Oven Story Pizza and The Biryani Life, reported operating revenue of Rs 1,951.6 crore for FY26, in figures carried by Entrackr on 18 September 2026. The headline rounds that to Rs 1,952 crore. The precise figure is Rs 1,951.6 crore and that is the one to use.
Revenue rose from Rs 1,617.4 crore in FY25, a gain of 20.7 percent, reported as 21 percent. Net loss narrowed to Rs 281.8 crore from Rs 336.6 crore, a reduction of 16.3 percent, reported as 16 percent. Total expenditure was Rs 2,265.9 crore against Rs 1,986.6 crore, up 14.1 percent. Expenses grew slower than revenue, and that gap is what moved the loss. Cost per rupee of revenue fell to Rs 1.16 from Rs 1.23.
The cost lines run as follows. Materials Rs 784.4 crore, employee benefits Rs 412.3 crore, brokerage and commissions Rs 317.7 crore, advertising Rs 193.9 crore, depreciation and amortisation Rs 153.5 crore, other expenses Rs 404.2 crore. Other income, which sits outside operating revenue, was Rs 43.3 crore. EBITDA was a loss of Rs 105.7 crore, a margin of negative 5.4 percent. India contributed Rs 1,667.7 crore, or 85.5 percent of revenue, and the rest of the world Rs 283.8 crore, growing 39 percent.
For a brand that sells through delivery platforms, one line does more work than the rest. Brokerage and commissions of Rs 317.7 crore against Rs 1,951.6 crore of revenue is 16.3 percent of every rupee earned going to the aggregator layer. That cost grew 31 percent in the year while revenue grew 20.7 percent, so the distribution take is climbing faster than the demand it buys. Read it alongside the negative 5.4 percent EBITDA margin and the shape of the problem is clear enough. The loss is narrowing. The channel cost is not.
Two things are absent. There is no outlet or kitchen count in the reported numbers, and there are no per-brand unit economics for the six brands. Revenue per kitchen, and which of the six carries the commission load, cannot be established from this disclosure. They are not estimated here.
Zane’s analysis draws on original reporting by Entrackr. Read the original report.