Thank you very much, Garima. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Urban Company's Q4 FY 2026 earnings call.

Let me start by saying that Q4 was amongst the strongest quarters that we've ever had in the history of Urban Company, in what I believe was a defining year for the company, our first as a listed company. We delivered our highest-ever consolidated NTV growth in 15 quarters, crossed 10 million orders for the first time in a single quarter, and meaningfully improved the profitability of our core businesses, and I'll walk through each of these one by one.

Let me start with the headlines. On a consolidated basis, Q4 net transaction value grew 42% year-on-year to reach ₹1,148 crores, and revenue grew 43% year-on-year to reach ₹426 crores.

For the full financial year FY 2026, consolidated NTV reached ₹4,290 crores, which is up 33% year-on-year, excluding the impact of Saudi deconsolidation. Our transacting user base also grew by a healthy 24% to reach 8.4 million unique annual transacting users, and today, 83% of our net transaction value comes from retained users.

Now, four very important points that I want to talk about before we get into Q&A, four simple but powerful points which, in our view, help capture the story of Urban Company, where is it today and where is it heading. Let me start with the core business, India core consumer services ex-InstaHelp.

In our view, the core is accelerating with structurally improving margins. If I look at India consumer services ex-InstaHelp, we grew by 26% in Q4 for NTV to reach ₹808 crores.

This was our fastest growth in 11 quarters. Our adjusted EBITDA margin also improved from 1.6% of NTV a year ago to 3.3% of NTV.

As a result, for the full financial year, the business delivered ₹131 crores of adjusted EBITDA, or 4.1% of NTV, which was about 80 basis points ahead of the initial view that we had at the beginning of the year. To put things in context, this core business was loss-making as recently as FY 2024.

That's the first point. The second point is international.

I want to highlight for investors that international is now scaling rapidly and is profitable. Our UAE and Singapore businesses delivered 84% NTV growth in Q4 to reach ₹211 crores of NTV, and this was despite some demand headwind in UAE in the month of March because of the escalation of the Middle East conflict.

For the full financial year, international NTV grew 75% to reach ₹700 crores, and the business turned adjusted EBITDA positive, ₹6 crores for the entire financial year. This business, for us, is now four times larger than it was four years back.

Third, I want to talk about Native, a business that we started barely two to three years back, has now become meaningful in scale with a clear path to profitability. NTV grew 67% in Q4 to reach ₹89 crores, and it reached ₹345 crores for the full financial year, up 122% over the previous year.

The adjusted EBITDA loss narrowed from ₹39 crores in FY 2025 to ₹31 crores in FY 2026, even as the business scaled more than 100%. Margin trajectory improved from -25.1% of NTV to -8.9% of NTV.

What's even more encouraging is that the earliest cohort of users who have completed two years, almost 75% of them have come back to us and gotten their replacement and renewal cycle through Urban Company. That number is almost 4x of what the industry averages.

It's a strong signal of consumer stickiness, and this number will only compound further as the installed base grows. Last, but by no means least, is InstaHelp, our most significant investment today and one where we are leaning in heavily.

This business did not exist a year back. In the fourth quarter of FY 2026, it delivered 2.7 million orders, with as many as 1.1 million-plus orders in March alone and ₹40 crores of NTV.

This business did incur a meaningful loss, ₹119 crores of adjusted EBITDA loss in the last quarter. This loss reflects the cost of building the market: consumer acquisition, network density subsidies, and supply onboarding.

We are very clear that we are investing to win here, and we intend to stay ahead and cement our market leadership. Given the competitive dynamics in this space, we've shared everything we will be able to share on InstaHelp in the shareholder letter.

We won't be going beyond that in this earnings call. I hope you all understand why.

Finally, a little bit of a housekeeping point. The consolidated P&L for this quarter was -₹160 crores of loss.

However, adjusted EBITDA was only ₹98 crores. The delta was owing to a reversal of DTA of about ₹61 crores, the details of which are there in the shareholder letter.

Overall, we believe we are in a very confident position. Our businesses are accelerating as far as growth is concerned.

Excluding the investments in InstaHelp, our businesses are profitable, with the core delivering about ₹22 crores of adjusted EBITDA profit in the last quarter and ₹106 crores for the full financial year 2026. We ended the financial year with ₹2,021 crores of cash in the balance sheet.

We believe we are well-positioned both from balance sheet cash perspective as well as the core generating increasingly larger profits to fund InstaHelp's growth journey while maintaining a decent balance sheet. We retain our target of consolidated adjusted EBITDA break-even by Q3 FY 2028 and ₹1,000 crores of adjusted EBITDA by FY 2031.

With that, I will hand it back to Garima for Q&A.

Hi, are you able to hear me?

Perfect, thank you. Hi, good evening.

Thank you for taking my questions and congratulations on great set of numbers. Growth really, really strong and also wanted to commend the team on the extensive disclosures in the shareholder letter, they're really helpful.

I have a few questions, please feel free to stop me and I'm happy to jump back in the queue. First one is on just the growth bits, and I know you've talked about it in the shareholder letter in a fair bit of detail as to what drove the growth.

When I look at just the India consumer services ex-InstaHelp, even the top 10 cities despite no category expansion, you've delivered 25% growth. Now, one, wanted to understand, have you seen this kind of acceleration in your business in the past, as well?

What I mean by that is the core consumer services is not a new category for you, you've been doing this for a long time, and has this time's growth acceleration been different in the past, and why has it been different, what is driving this acceleration versus what you may have seen in the past, and how much of it a contributor is the instant delivery of services that is leading to growth, that'll be just helpful to understand. Maybe a follow-on as to, I know you've talked about durability will need to be tested over a few quarters, but any color on your sense on visibility of how long this could sustain, that's my first question, please.

That's a great question, Manish. Manish, for the listeners to understand India consumer services, it's a very large and complex business.

We have 60-plus service categories spread across 47 cities in hundreds of micromarkets. Across each and every service category and micromarket, one has to carefully build supply and demand density while ensuring quality control, training, consistency of service, and go the whole nine yards.

We've been hard at work for many years now doing that. We believe that many of our categories and micromarkets are hitting an inflection point from a densification standpoint, which is driving the simple flywheel what we've talked about in our shareholder letter of faster, cheaper, better.

I'll spend a minute talking about this. Now once you cross threshold density in a category in a micromarket, what ends up happening is that service professionals start getting utilized much better.

Consequently, their earnings go up and the cost to serve for the entire business comes down. Some of these benefits can also be enjoyed by the customer in terms of better value.

Also, travel distances come down, job packing efficiencies move up, and therefore service professionals are spending more time inside the consumers' homes delivering orders and less time either waiting for orders or traveling towards orders. Therefore customers also start to enjoy what we call faster, which is faster fulfillment.

We have started to roll out UC Instant, where you can get the service within 30 to 60 minutes, and we're in the early innings of UC Instant getting rolled out and the goodness of UC Instant playing across the marketplace. Then better, because service professionals are more dependent on the platform, they're seeing higher earnings, we see better retention, their propensity to follow UC SOPs, UC's quality protocols, etc., all of that improves, and that translates into better service for the end consumer.

Simply put, a professional who's earning more and traveling less is generally more likely to deliver a service to you with a smile, and we've always maintained that happy professionals lead to happy customers. That trifecta of faster, cheaper, better, which seems like a simple playbook, but it's very hard to execute across so many services and so many micromarkets, when it starts to get going, that acceleration is possible.

Now, why do we not yet want to call it a long-term trend and want to observe for a few quarters? Because we're just getting started on this.

Yes, NTV growth has been accelerating. In Q2 FY 2026, it was 19%, it jumped to 21% in Q3, and 26% in Q4.

As prudent management, we want to wait and watch, see another two, three, four quarters, and then see if we believe that the acceleration means that from a five-year lens, vis-a-vis what we had imagined earlier, this business can be much larger.

Very helpful, Abhiraj, for that. One, I was just curious that you operate in multiple cities, let's say if we talk about your top 10 cities, I'm just surprised that all of them are seeing acceleration at the same time.

I would have thought that some cities would be in different places on the curve, where some would have seen acceleration two years ago, some may see two years later. Is there a common thread as to why they are all seeing acceleration at the same time, or have you seen some cities already, let's say, peak in terms of growth and some that are accelerating a lot, just any dynamics you can share there, that'll be helpful.

I would say for the last few months, we've seen very broad-based demand acceleration to the point where, internally, we feel that the real challenge was building high-quality supply across these cities and categories and micromarkets, and we know that we've left demand on the table across cities and categories.

Very clear, thank you. Second question is just on InstaHelp, and I appreciate, Abhiraj, you mentioned you won't be able to share too much detail, but still trying my luck.

When you say losses remaining elevated for the foreseeable future, are you expecting potentially losses to also increase from these levels? When you say elevated for a prolonged period of time, are we talking about four quarters, eight quarters, longer than that?

Any color you can share, that'll be helpful. Also maybe a related question, average order value continues to get lower.

My concern there is, would it be that much more difficult for you to recover AOV if they keep getting lower, and thus maybe take you further away from whatever steady-state margin expectations are in that business?

No, thanks for that question, Manish. I'd say I'll just take us a little bit of a step back.

One of our messages to the investor community is that at this stage of our company building journey, we believe the investor community should hold us very much accountable to disciplined, high-quality execution in our core India services business, in international, and even in Native, which means continued growth and compounding, improving margins year after year—some quarters they'll go up, some quarters they'll go down, but a consistent margin upward trajectory every year—and cash generation. For InstaHelp, we believe that right now, the most important thing is market leadership.

We believe we have a strong balance sheet, we believe we have cash-generating core business, and we've given two clear guidelines that we will hold as guardrails for ourselves, which is a consolidated break-even at an adjusted EBITDA level by Q3 FY 2028 and ₹1,000 crores of adjusted EBITDA by FY 2031. We're committed to sticking to those overall guardrails.

Within that, the rest of it, I think the management needs the maneuverability. It's a dynamic market.

Some quarters, AOVs will move up, some quarters they'll move down. It'll be a combination of tactics and strategy.

We're very much focused on seeing that this shapes up well in the medium term. We have our eyes on all of those numbers that you spoke about.

We believe right now the most important thing for us is continuing to cement our market leadership and staying ahead of the game, while longitudinally making sure that loss per order keeps coming down and over a period of time, losses come down. How much time it will take, etc., is something we will continue to evaluate.

Very clear. Just maybe last question from me before I jump back in the queue.

I know you have an answer or a question around artificial intelligence, but if you can just maybe help summarize for us both on the demand side and maybe also on the cost side, what are, let's say, the changes that we can expect from an AI perspective in terms of revenue levers or cost levers, that'll be helpful. Thank you.

Hi Manish, this is Abhay. I'll take that question, and thank you for asking it.

I think this is an area which is full of potential for us, and we've taken initial steps. To start with, we've actually built a solid layer of AI on top of our core platform, which is now embedded in everyday operations.

I'll call out a few areas where we made progress and where we're excited about for the future. I think the first one really is on quality.

We are leveraging AI extensively in proof of work. We're auditing 100% of images which are shared during the job, also running diagnostics in some of our repair and appliance and handyman categories.

We've made a fair amount of progress in customer and partner support, where 55% of all partner support queries are now handled effectively through AI, and this is helping us deliver a low cost as well. We're also generating top of funnel for partners through AI by asking existing partners to refer jobs which were done by people earlier.

We've always been using AI for demand forecasting. AI has only made our demand forecasting and trend line simpler and more accurate.

We've started deploying it in a couple of areas for revenue as well. For Native, for example, if your filter life is about to expire, you will get a call from Urban Company reminding you to refresh it.

We're visualizing interior spaces for our revamp using AI, which helps make decision-making much simpler. These are early steps in revenue generation.

On code, I think this is the area where we've seen the maximum progress. Conservatively, more than 90% of our code is being shipped by GenAI, and this was not the case some time ago.

A lot of the basic work is being done leveraging AI, and we're also using it for fraud detection. I think we're just getting started.

This is a space with a lot of potential. We're actually driving usage within the organization, and we'll keep updating investors as we see more progress.

Thank you so much for patiently answering all my questions. All the best.

Thanks, Garima. Hi, management, good day.

I have three sets of questions. First question on Native.

Your losses have expanded on a YoY and QoQ basis. Anything specific happening out there?

Abhiraj, any specific timelines we could have from a Native break-even point of view? Yes.

Nothing specific as such to call out, Sachin. I think the business trajectory has grown well.

Business has grown by 67% on an NTV basis, even faster on net revenue. Margins have improved.

Same time last year, the margin trajectory was -14.7% of NTV, and now it's -9.9%. Margins have improved.

We are fairly confident, I would say, on the trajectory from here on to achieve break-even. We don't want to give a timeline yet, but it should happen in the next few quarters, I'd say.

Got it. This break-even will happen despite launch of new products in the Native category?

Yes, we believe so. This should happen despite any new products that we launch.

Some of the elevated losses are on account of R&D for new products, our core is actually already approaching close to break-even.

Got it. Second question is on InstaHelp, and I completely get in terms of management having the flexibility, it's a new business.

What we are actually seeing is both your competitors raise money. In pockets, one could see competition getting irrational.

Any guardrails you want to indicate to the analyst and investor community, hey, these are some of the things like, for example, on a loss per order basis, there is no intention to become much higher than that? Because I understand your medium-term and longer-term targets in terms of EBITDA break-even, as well as where you want to have an EBITDA.

If on a quarter-to-quarter basis losses are expanding, we do expect some comfort in terms of, hey, this is a threshold where one could get a sense that competitive intensity is getting completely irrational, and perhaps it's okay to let go a bit of a market share just in case because things are a bit bad. Again, wanted to understand any color you could give.

Of course, a follow-up is, because this is relatively new business and it is not there in most of the countries across the globe, how could one think about any range for a steady-state unit economics or EBITDA margin in the medium term?

No, both fair questions, and appreciate where you're coming from, Sachin. I think we've been doing this now for close to 12 years, 11 and a half years, Sachin, and we've seen various cycles of competition and irrationality, it's nothing new to us.

I'd say the level of competitive intensity that we're seeing and irrationality that we're seeing right now is pretty manageable. We're not perturbed by it.

If anything, we're very clear that we're playing to win, and not playing to look elegant. Sometimes in the short run, either you can optimize for market share or you can optimize for on-paper elegance, and we're not optimizing for elegance.

We're optimizing to win, we're optimizing for market share, which means if we have to be irrational from time to time, we should be willing to be irrational as well. I don't worry about competition too much.

I think our eyes are on the customer and the service professional, and we're playing to win.

Got it. A related question on the InstaHelp is there are adjacencies and potential new services also one could look to explore.

For example, cooks, drivers, help for elderly, and so on and so forth. Are these some of the areas or are there any adjacencies you guys are experimenting and looking to expand into?

We keep experimenting, Sachin, but strategically right now, we think all our energy and resources and focus should actually go into densifying and winning in the core segments. We know that some of our competitors are experimenting with some of these adjacencies, but we're focused on core.

We believe that's essentially the turf to win. That's all our attention and focus right now.

We have limited resources as a company, monetary and people, and we want to focus all of them towards winning the main segment in the main micromarkets.

Very clear. Lastly, Middle East clearly is now seeing some signs of recovery.

How is your business? Are we back to square one in terms of recovery or it's still a gradual recovery?

No, more or less back to square one. In fact, the dip for us also was there, but we were far more resilient than most other businesses, and that's visible in the numbers that you would have seen that we've put out there on the month-on-month trajectory.

There was a dip, but the year-on-year growth continued to be pretty healthy, and the business now is almost back to full recovery.

Perfect. All the best and very many thanks again.

Thank you, Sachin.

Hi Garima, this is Abhay. I'll try and answer that.

In the last quarter, we didn't really see any disruption. I think in the month which has gone by, we are seeing some level of demand loss, but nothing unusual.

I think we had seen some of this coming, and we had prepped in advance. We had onboarded more and more professionals.

I think for a services business like ours, this is a BAU problem, and there's nothing which we are really concerned about here.

For the large part, Garima, we believe this will have to come from the current two products that we have, which is water purifiers and smart electronic door locks. We've not put a timeline to it deliberately because we don't know how long it will take, but we believe that those two segments should be meaningful enough over a period of time to get us there.

This is also because it's not just the revenue from product sales, as in water purifiers, the installed base increases, Garima, the service revenues also start to kick in, and over time they can be quite meaningful, especially given that our early retention signs are very, very healthy and a meaningful multiplier of what the industry averages. Some of that number could also come from new products that we launch, but for the large part, I think it'll be the existing categories.

Very hard to say both how large this market is and what the end-state structure could look like. Generally speaking, I am of the view that in businesses of trust, it's a winner-take-all.

This is a business of trust, I really don't see any reason why there should be multiple players over time. That's at least the mindset with which we are approaching this market.

In our core business, we have lionshare of the market, and we'd like something similar to play out here, as well. Of course, we are mindful that in order to achieve that, we have to deliver a superlative service to the end consumer, win on execution, and there are other funded competitive players who are also attacking the market.

I think this will eventually boil down to execution over a period of time. Which other services they will launch, honestly, beyond a point, it's not something that we worry about because our core business is very, very large.

We're still scratching the surface. We're probably sub-1% to 2% of the addressable market.

We're focused on what we have to do here.

I think our view is that this is a service of trust. It's a service where the quality of the service professional, the training, the effort that you put into selection, onboarding, the details that you go into SOPs, etc., these are the things that matter.

They will compound slower than discounts and instantaneous availability and throwing money at the problem, but they will compound in the long run, and that's what we're focused on. We actually do not dilute our quality selection and onboarding and training processes for this business vis-a-vis our core.

That playbook that we have developed on the core business over the last 10 years is something that we have extrapolated to InstaHelp as well. We talked about average ratings in InstaHelp, which are at 4.7, very close to where the core is, and we believe materially better than the rest of the industry.

We also believe our repeat rates and retention rates are, to the best of our knowledge, industry-leading at this point in time. That's part of the reason why we are the clear market leaders today.

In our view, it will eventually come down to quality of service, quality of the supply side, and like our core, this will be a supply-first business, and whoever wins the supply side of the market will be the winner.

Hi, thank you for taking my question. Congrats on a great execution.

My first question is on the densification that you talked about. Have you seen any impact of competition in those micromarkets?

My sense is that there'll be meaningful difference in the consumer experience because of the instant service that you are launching versus what competition would have been doing in select categories, and therefore there will be years behind to catch up. There would have been some consolidation in those micromarkets.

Any anecdotal evidence if can share on that?

This is with reference to India core, right, Gaurav?

Yes, yeah. India core business.

Yeah. To be honest, in India core, Gaurav, we don't spend a lot of time looking at or tracking competition.

Part of the reason could be that competition is very distributed across categories and micromarkets. I think much of this growth is actually just driven by internal factors around what I refer to as faster, cheaper, better.

As I mentioned, we feel we left demand on the table because we were supply-constrained for most of the quarter. I think that's really where our effort is.

It's on the supply side. It's on making sure that quality of our supply side, of our service professionals, training, SOPs are top-notch, and we continue to drive densification and consequently roll out instant.

I think the goodness of that, in our view, those are strong inputs. If the service is available faster, it's better value for the end consumer, and the quality of service is improving, in our view, that should translate into growth.

Got it. Secondly, is there a sensitivity to AOV from demand perspective?

I know that for a lot of the basic categories, the AOVs would have remained largely similar across last couple of years. If there is a inflation-related problem, even if it is a transient one, there could be some impact on the AOVs.

I'm just trying to understand, based on your historical experience, have you seen any sensitivity or it doesn't really matter?

I would say in the core, the sensitivity is low. In InstaHelp, of course, is very high.

In the core, there's always some sensitivity, but it's very much manageable.

Okay. Last question on your outlook on consolidated break-even.

Nothing has changed, right, while external environment on Insta category has changed in terms of potential fundraising, etc. Is it coming from greater confidence in the core business given that you have executed or outexecuted your own expectations in fiscal 2026, which gives you a very strong confidence that even if the investments were to remain higher than what you would have thought through in Insta, you would be more than able to offset that with better profitability in the core business, or is it your view that external environment could change fast?

Thank you.

It's the former. I think we feel that the way we're executing on the core will give us enough buffer and cushion, even if the external environment for Insta were to deteriorate.

Yeah.

All the best. Thank you.

Thank you, Gaurav.

Good evening.

The first question is regarding the [unclear]

volatility of the margins. Hello, can you hear me?

My question is regarding the volatility in the margin for the India core business. While the EBITDA margin have structurally sort of trended up, in this quarter, as you said that you were supply-constrained.

Hence, one would have expected the margins to sort of go up, but that has not really happened. What exactly led to that situation?

My second question is that for InstaHelp platform, what kind of cohort are we getting? Is it the same cohort which was sort of using other services is now coming to InstaHelp, or there is a new set of customers who are coming, and is there any rub-off of those customers because of this [unclear]?

Yeah. No,

thanks for the question, Pranav. On the India consumer services adjusted EBITDA margin as a percentage of NTV, we've mentioned this in the past that the right way to think about this is year-on-year versus quarter-on-quarter.

That's because there are multiple factors every quarter around seasonality, etc. Therefore, Q1 and Q3 in every year are structurally better quarters than Q2 and Q4.

Why is that the case? It's because Q1 and Q3 are seasonally stronger quarters.

Therefore, a lot of the marketing, supply ramp-up, etc., for us happens in the preceding quarters, which is Q2 and Q4. Q4 also happens to be the quarter where we have our annual appraisals.

For a variety of factors, if we look at this business on a quarter-on-quarter basis from a margin standpoint, we'll not be able to fully understand and appreciate. Now that we have eight quarters of trajectory, we can actually compare year-on-year.

That's what we've always told investors that don't look at it quarter-on-quarter, look at it year-on-year. Year-on-year, if you see Q4 has gone from 1.6% in Q4 FY 2025 to 3.3% in Q4 FY 2026, and also the entire India consumer services business has gone from 3.3% to 4.1%.

That trajectory, we believe, should continue, and eventually this business should get to about 10% adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of NTV over a longer period of time. Every year, there will be margin expansion; some years it'll be faster, some years it'll be slower.

The right way to think about it is year-on-year, not quarter-on-quarter. That's the first question.

Second question on InstaHelp, I think we're seeing both existing cohorts of Urban Company consumers adopt it, but we're also seeing newer cohorts and newer customers first time to the platform adopt InstaHelp. InstaHelp to that extent is also helping us expand our own TAM.

Okay. Thank you.

That's it from my side. All the best.

Thanks, Pranav.

Hi, Abhiraj. Congratulations on the good set of numbers.

First, I wanted to understand as we go into FY 2027, how do we look at between adding new micromarkets and deepening our supply in InstaHelp? How many new micromarkets are we looking to open, or cities are we looking to open?

Because, for example, in our office, more than 50% of the staff don't have access to InstaHelp. When would our top three cities get fully covered for us across say Bangalore, NCR, and Mumbai, for example?

Yeah. Good question, Srinath.

I think hard to give a precise timeline, but what I'd say is that our leaning is always towards densification and going deeper and penetrating existing micromarkets. We'll continue to expand coverage in a calibrated fashion, but we do believe that the most important micromarkets have to be won, and therefore, densifying and penetrating them deeper will be priority over proliferation.

Perfect. Any broad thoughts on getting full coverage in the top cities?

I think full coverage may not happen even for a long period of time because in certain parts of the city, there might not be adequate density for me to be able to have effective cost to serve. Micromarkets that we're prioritizing are the micromarkets where we believe that as we densify, we can eventually get those micromarkets to break even and eventually become profitable, even if in the interim they're loss-making.

There'll be some parts of the city where just the demand density is so spread out that at least so far, we haven't cracked the model to serve them well. Now work on that will continue to happen, but if you think about how demand density and cost to serve plays out in InstaHelp, it's actually far more hyperlocal than quick commerce.

To that extent, the prioritization playbook here is even more important. Yeah.

Perfect. On the strong India services growth, would it be fair to assume that some of the InstaHelp flywheel is playing out?

Any qualitative comments on how cross-sell is playing out with customers who are InstaHelp customers as the app moves to the front page of the phone? Are we seeing any higher repeat usage for those particular cohort of customers that could be helping the strong growth in India services?

Too early to form a view there, Srinath, but if anything, We think the growth is in and of its own merit.

Got it. The last question would be, given that some level of marketing activity is also started for InstaHelp, the losses that we are posting, not necessarily all of these losses are coming from a CM level of MG and consumer subsidies, would there be some amount of spends on performance marketing or advertising in a way fixed cost of InstaHelp?

Yes, absolutely, and we've mentioned that in the letter, as well, that this quarter saw elevated marketing to acquire new users and build the brand, including for the Cricket World Cup. Actually all other metrics, which form part of the loss per order, moved in the right direction and moved positively.

It was only largely on account of this one metric that the loss per order swung in the reverse direction. Everything else actually moved in the right direction.

To be clear, contribution loss per order was actually down, but it was largely losses from fixed cost? Fair enough?

Correct.

Yeah.

Thanks a lot. I'll get back in the question queue.

Hi. Thanks, Garima, for the opportunity.

Hi, team. Congrats on a great quarter.

My question was kind of a follow-up on the InstaHelp offering. Is it fair to assume that, as compared to other services which require densification, the degree of densification required here is far higher because the maids, etc., they might not really have modes of transport?

From that perspective, the TAM would probably be even more constrained considering it requires hyper-densification. In that context, considering we've got, let's say, two to three players attacking this particular sort of TAM in a very irrational way, how long or rather what are the kind of criteria we set ourselves to, in the sense that if it becomes irrational for too long, do we choose to kind of pare back sort of our investments, or do we double down here, considering InstaHelp can be a funnel to our other offerings which may have slightly higher TAM?

Thank you.

Yeah. Short answer to that question is you're right, InstaHelp's density is far more granular compared to core or perhaps any other consumer internet business to the best of our knowledge.

Does that constrain the TAM? Maybe.

Maybe playbooks can evolve to serve medium-density micromarkets as well. I think that's to be seen.

As a consequence of that, how large is the TAM and the size of the prize? We don't know, and honestly, beyond a point, that's not the most important thing we're worried about today.

Whatever it is, we want to win it. That's how we think about it.

I think we don't have a choice. We have to win, and we have to win big.

If it's a very large TAM, great. If it's a medium-sized TAM, that's also good for us because we have other businesses that we live and eat our bread off, this business only helps accelerate those.

It plays a certain role in terms of frequency and engagement on the app. We have discussed and debated this internally, and our view is whether it's a mid-sized TAM or a very large TAM, right now from our perspective, strategically, the only thing that makes sense is to attack it aggressively and win it.

Very clear, Abhiraj.

Makes sense. That's how we're thinking about it, actually thinking about it pretty simply, rather than trying to overcomplicate it.

Whatever the size of the TAM is, we have to win it.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Hi. Thanks for the opportunity.

My first question is with respect to InstaHelp versus international markets. Now, the question out here is is winning in the InstaHelp market in India more important than opportunity available in, let's say, some of the other geographies where your services are not available beyond UAE and Singapore today, and there could be a potential TAM available there also, and with limited competition compared to what is happening in InstaHelp right now?

No, good question, and strategically, we've mentioned that in the past in a few shareholder letters as well. I think we've strategically chosen to prioritize India and the two overseas markets that we have wholly owned subsidiaries in, UAE and Singapore, as well as KSA through a JV.

We're clear we're not launching any other international markets. I'm sure the opportunity is good in some of these markets, but from our strategic prioritization standpoint, we are focused on India and these two markets for now and for the foreseeable future.

Will it be fair to say that till the time you achieve your guidances, the medium-term guidances, any incremental international geography is broadly out of question?

Yes, absolutely. We've said that in one of the past letters in as many words as well.

Got it. The second question is with respect to Is there an seasonality in your customer marketing expenses for the India business?

Because it seems from 3Q to 4Q for the last two years, this costs have been increase on a quarterly basis.

Hi Swapnil, this

is Abhay. I'll answer that.

Yes, there is seasonality in our marketing spend and the cadence there. Typically, as Abhiraj mentioned, Q1 and Q3 are the quarters where we see a lot of consumer activity.

Before the beginning of those quarters, to some extent during the quarter, we do increase our marketing spends at that time. Overall, if you've seen, we've seen consistent operating leverage in our marketing spends over the last couple of years.

Yes, in the year, there are spikes depending on when the season is about to start.

Got it, got it. Thank you, guys.

Those were my questions and all the best.

Hi, am I audible?

Okay. Thank you for the opportunity.

I have three questions. My first question is could you help us understand how the instant India consumer business works operationally?

How do you transition from a scheduled services marketplace to an instant service model? Do you require excess capacity initially in order to ensure timely supply?

That's my first question, and I'll then follow it up with the other two.

No, great question. How this works, I won't go into the nth level of detail here, but it's a reasonable change management that we do at the backend operationally: realigning the micromarkets in terms of their size, realigning partner expectations, calendar management, availability, etc., etc., before we flip a micromarket in a category and make the instant proposition available there.

We also have to ensure that there is adequate supply and demand and density therein. The interesting point here is that, and we've shown this in our letter as well, we're achieving this with increasing utilization on the supply side and not decreasing utilization.

Conventional wisdom would say that in order to offer instant, you'll have to keep slack, and therefore utilization should fall. What we're experiencing is that utilization is actually improving.

That's because we're offering instant in the sweet spot of 30 to 60 minutes, which doesn't require us to break the back on capacity and utilization. If anything, those orders see fewer cancellation rates vis-a-vis scheduled orders, and back-to-back packing and efficiency is better, and consequently we're actually seeing better utilization as a result of that instant rollout.

It's a real win-win in our view. It helps improve packing efficiency and overall utilization for partners and consequently improve their earnings.

It helps bring down time to serve for end consumers, and it's also more profitable for us. Obviously, if we were to take the core marketplace also all the way to 10 minutes, that would mean what you're saying, which is keep a lot of excess capacity.

We don't think that's needed. We think 30 to 60 minutes is adequate for most of our core services, as long as we can deliver that reliably.

Consumers are happy with that change and shift.

Got it, understood. Thank you for that.

My second question is on the fact that you've spoken about it earlier as well and even in this shareholder letter, that there is deep trust that is embedded in the model, given that professionals spend significant time inside the homes of the customers. At the same time, we are seeing new instant service platforms also enter, and they are also gaining a reasonable amount of customer acceptance.

Do you think the comfort of the customer with allowing service professionals into their home is becoming more standardized over time across platforms?

I think at the end of the day, any player that executes well on quality, on safety, on trust, and doesn't take the customer's trust for granted can eventually gain acceptance, and we don't make any tall claims that we'll be the only player who will enter the homes of the customers. We're certainly one of the trusted players, in our view.

We also think to be able to do this across 60-plus categories and hundreds of micromarkets, in categories in our core business where the complexity of the business is much higher in terms of training, in terms of tooling, SOPs, etc., is not a mean feat. Sometimes easy to execute that in a single-category business, but not so much across multiple categories.

Therefore, historically, we've always seen competition limited to one or two verticals rather than the entire horizontal skew. Now it's always possible that over time, players emerge in the entire horizontal skew, which is okay.

At the end of the day, competition keeps us honest, keeps us charged up, and delivers the best services to the end consumers. It's a very large market, as we've emphasized multiple times in the past.

The total market is more than ₹5 lakh crores. We're still a very, very small percentage of that market, sub-1%, and I think if anything, the focus should be on how do we keep growing the pie versus zero-sum of how we break a small pie today between players.

Right, makes sense. Last question is on the international business.

Could you elaborate on the competitive landscape across your key markets, given that these markets are relatively more organized and structured? Who are your key competitors over here?

Yeah. I think in UAE, we have one more competitor, there are lots of players, but there's a company called Justlife, who has been around in the market for as long as we have, a little bit longer than us, pretty decent players.

We do have respect for them, and we've learned a lot from them and they've learned a lot from us. We believe that competition in that market has been quite healthy, and both players are growing well.

That market continues to be very attractive from a long-term growth and margin attractiveness standpoint. I think that's an interesting and exciting market.

In Singapore, there are lots of small players, nobody meaningful to call out. Again, a very very exciting market, growing well for us profitably.

Both the markets, I think, the headroom for growth is meaningful. We're growing profitably, our proposition continues to improve year after year.

The same playbook of faster, cheaper, better is playing out in those markets as well, and if anything, in an accelerated fashion because the demand density operates on steroids in some sense in both these markets. We're quite excited by how our international business is shaping up across these two markets.

Saudi, we don't recognize revenue, but that business is also shaping up very well. We've disclosed the numbers, and as you can see, the growth is in the right direction, margins are improving.

We now believe we have a clear line of sight towards profitability in our joint venture in Saudi Arabia as well, and we're quite excited by that.

Got it. Thank you for the answers, and all the best for the coming quarters.

Thank you.

Hi. Thanks for the opportunity.

Am I audible?

Deepak. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Congratulations on great set of numbers.

My only question I have on the international side. What I understood for the international business, you very beautifully laid out the fact that how your subscription model has played out and meaningfully contributing to the overall numbers there.

If you just can lay out what are the drivers that are working well for subscription model there, and secondly, how can we apply that model here at all the dynamics allow us to do that? These are the two questions I have initially.

Deepak. That's a good question.

Deepak, one of the main services for us, one of fairly important service in both UAE and Singapore, is cleaning, deep cleaning of the home. While some households there have permanent house help, as you can imagine, a lot of households don't.

Therefore, they rely on platforms like us or local players, offline players, and the larger unorganized market to get weekly, biweekly, fortnightly, monthly, or once in a while deep cleaning done. We have been able to launch subscription programs and lock in essentially these household and users into more high-frequency deep cleaning.

For example, in UAE, many of our users use our deep cleaning not just once in a while, but maybe on a weekly or fortnightly basis, and quite a few of them use it multiple times a week as well. That actually accelerates the growth of the business.

Similarly, in Singapore, while the sub-weekly use case for our deep cleaning is not prevalent, many users use us on a weekly or fortnightly basis, and these users get locked into subscription programs, and then it becomes sort of an annuity-like business. Some of those learnings will certainly be helpful for us here in India, as well.

We are toying with and experimenting with cleaning subscriptions. I believe over time, we will experiment with versions of these in InstaHelp as well.

We also have bundling programs in India which take a leaf off the playbook in our international markets. Many learnings for us from these two markets.

Got it, that's helpful. Just in the same context, when we see InstaHelp, you mentioned that for 10% of the users, you have eight times monthly orders, and for 1% of the top users, you have 21 times, right?

Is there a scope, I know it's pretty early days, but is there a scope of enabling any subscription model for InstaHelp in India?

I'm sure it's possible. I'm sure the scope is there.

Superb, superb. Fine.

Last question on InstaHelp side, on the payment side, right? The payouts that we're doing to our professionals, just trying to understand because the volume has gained meaningfully, say three months ago and currently, is there any change in the structure of payment as far as fixed payment is concerned and job-specific variables are concerned?

Is there any specific change which can improve the cost dynamics depending upon successfully delivered services or jobs?

We keep experimenting and toying with various structures tactically that we believe are sort of best suited to win different micromarkets and keep supply engaged, and depending upon the supply-demand situation in a particular micromarket in a particular point in time, we're quite nimble with some of these changes.

Does it have any fixed component or gradually moving to a lower fixed component in that context?

There's a per hour payout essentially, but that can vary based on the quality of the service professional and the particular micromarket and time of the day and time of the week. It's quite dynamic.

That's really helpful. Thanks a lot.

Last question from my end, on the user side. Say InstaHelp and consumer services business, right?

Are we seeing incrementally any new users coming solely for InstaHelp, and again, you're able to cross-utilize it for consumer, or it's the other way round?

It's both.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. Any distribution you would like to lay out in terms of proportion somewhere more?

It's the core business, higher proportion leading to InstaHelp incrementally, or it's the other way?

No, not right now.

Fine. Thank you.

That's really helpful. All the best for FY 2027.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you.