“Comparative Analysis of User Experience, Service Quality,

and Market Dynamics: A Study of Zomato and Swiggy in the

Food Delivery Industry”

Report submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirement for the degree of

Bachelor of Business
Administration Business Analytics
By

Kaushik Chavda (21BBA04001)

Under guidance of

Dr. Chetna Parmar

Project Mentor, Dean School of Management,

School of Management

GSFC University,

P. O, Fertilizer Nagar, Vigyan Bhavan,

Vadodara- 391750, Gujarat, India

DECLARATION
I declare that the Final Report titled " Comparative Analysis of User Experience, Service
Quality, and Market Dynamics: A Study of Zomato and Swiggy in the Food Delivery Industry, "
is my original work submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of (BBA)
in Business Analytics at GSFC University, under the supervision of Dr. Chetna Parmar.

This research examined user preferences for Zomato and Swiggy, revealing Swiggy's edge in
restaurant variety but highlighting lower user satisfaction with Zomato's past service.

While efforts were made to ensure accuracy, limitations may exist. This report reflects my
insights and does not necessarily represent the views of GSFC University or any other entity.

Kaushik Chavda
21bba04001
BBA-Business Analytics
GSFC University

Page | 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to the multitude of individuals who have
contributed to the fruition of this project, “Comparative Analysis of User Experience, Service
Quality,and Market Dynamics: A Study of Zomato and Swiggy in the Food Delivery Industry."

To my project supervisors, Dr. Chetna Parmar and Mrs. Anshu Trivedi my esteemed project
supervisor. Their expertise and encouragement have been invaluable in shaping the trajectory
and methodology of my research. I am truly grateful for their insightful feedback and
constructive criticism, which have undoubtedlyenriched the quality and depth of my study.

A special thanks goes out to all the participants who generously shared their time, insights, and
experiences. From audiences to influencers, your active involvement has been instrumental in
broadening my understanding of the subject matter and providing invaluable data for analysis.
Without your contributions, this project would not have been possible.

In closing, I wish to express my profound gratitude to everyone who has played a part, however
big or small, in bringing this project to fruition. Your support and encouragement have been the
driving force behind its successful completion.
Abstract: This research conducts a comparative analysis of Zomato and Swiggy,focusing on
user experience, service quality, and market dynamics in the food delivery industry. Using mixed
methods, it examines interface design, delivery speed, order accuracy, customer support, and
restaurant partnerships, blending quantitative data with qualitative insights. The findings provide
comprehensive insights into user engagement, reliability, and competitive strategies, offering
valuable implications for stakeholders navigating this dynamic landscape.

Keywords: User experience, Service quality, Comparative analysis, Delivery speed,Customer

support, Competitive strategies, and User satisfaction.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Delving into the Delivery Landscape: A Comparative Analysis of Zomato and Swiggy: This
study dives deep into the competitive landscape of the Indian food delivery industry, focusing on
the two major players: Zomato and Swiggy. By leveraging user experience research and market
analysis, we aim to uncover the key factors that influence user preference and drive market
dynamics.

Understanding User Appetite: Unveiling Preferences and Service Quality: This analysis will
shed light on the distinct preferences and expectations of food delivery users in India. By
identifying patterns and trends in user experience and service quality, the study will provide
valuable insights for Zomato and Swiggy.

Predicting Palates: Tailoring Strategies for Success: By developing a comprehensive

understanding of user behavior, we can predict user preferences and tailor service offerings
accordingly. This will enable Zomato and Swiggy to refine their marketing strategies, optimize
delivery operations, and ultimately, enhance user satisfaction and loyalty.

Dominating the Market Feast: A Recipe for Success: The findings of this study will equip
Zomato and Swiggy with the knowledge to make informed decisions regarding platform
development, marketing campaigns, and service improvements. This will empower them to stay
ahead of the curve in the ever-evolving food delivery industry, maximizing their market share
and achieving long-term success.

Bridging the Delivery Gap: A Win-Win for Users and Platforms: By understanding user
preferences and market dynamics, Zomato and Swiggy can bridge the gap between themselves
and their customers. This will foster a win-win situation, ensuring a delightful user experience
for food delivery enthusiasts while propelling Zomato and Swiggy to leadership positions in the
Indian food delivery.

Page | 3
INDEX

CHAPTER: 1 INTRODUCTION 6
Introduction of study 6
Company Information 10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 12

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 16

Problem Statement 13
Objective 13
Research Design 13
Data Collection 13
Sample Design 13
Sample Size 13
Data Analysis Tools 14
Hypothesis formulation 14
Limitation of study 14

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS 20

Graphs and Interpretation 21
Descriptive Statistics of Zomato and Swiggy factors 27
3Descriptive Statistics 25

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS 29

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 35

QUESTIONAIRE 39
 CHAPTER: 1
INTRODUCTION

Page | 5
1.2 Introduction of study:

The food delivery industry has seen remarkable growth over the past decade, driven by the
proliferation of smartphones, advancements in digital technologies, and evolving consumer
lifestyles. In urban areas especially, food delivery services have become an integral part of
everyday life, offering convenience and a wide variety of culinary options at the tap of a button.
Among the myriad of companies vying for market dominance in India, Zomato and Swiggy
stand out as the frontrunners, each carving a substantial niche in this highly competitive sector.

Zomato, initially launched as a restaurant discovery platform in 2008, expanded its services to
include food delivery in 2015. With its global presence in over 24 countries, Zomato has
diversified its offerings to include table reservations, premium membership programs, and even a
foray into grocery delivery. On the other hand, Swiggy, founded in 2014, has focused primarily
on the Indian market, rapidly scaling its operations and refining its logistics to become
synonymous with quick and reliable food delivery. Swiggy's introduction of services like Swiggy
Genie and Swiggy Instamart reflects its strategy to broaden its service portfolio and deepen
customer engagement.

This research project aims to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of Zomato and
Swiggy, focusing on three critical dimensions: user experience, service quality, and market
dynamics. These dimensions encapsulate the essential aspects that drive consumer preference,
operational efficiency, and competitive positioning in the food delivery industry.

User Experience: In the digital age, user experience (UX) is a pivotal factor that can
significantly influence customer loyalty and brand perception. For food delivery platforms, UX
encompasses the ease of app navigation, the intuitiveness of the user interface, personalization
features, and the overall satisfaction derived from the app's performance. This study will evaluate
these elements through user surveys, app reviews, and direct analysis of app features to
determine which platform offers a superior user experience.

Service Quality: The quality of service is a crucial determinant of customer retention and
business success. It includes the speed and accuracy of deliveries, the responsiveness of customer
support, and the quality of restaurant partnerships. By analyzing performance data and user
feedback, this research will assess how Zomato and Swiggy fare in maintaining high standards of
service and addressing customer grievances.

Market Dynamics: The competitive landscape of the food delivery industry is shaped by market
share, financial performance, and strategic initiatives. This study will examine the business
models of Zomato and Swiggy, their revenue streams, and market strategies. It will also consider
external factors such as regulatory policies, economic conditions, and technological innovations
that impact their operations and growth trajectories.
Technological Innovation and Integration: Beyond user experience and service quality, the
integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and
data analytics plays a pivotal role in enhancing operational efficiency and customer satisfaction.
This research will explore how Zomato and Swiggy leverage these technologies to optimize
delivery routes, predict customer preferences, and manage supply chain logistics. The impact of
these technological advancements on their competitive edge and scalability will be a key area of
focus.

Consumer Behavior and Preferences: Understanding consumer behavior is essential for

tailoring services to meet market demands. This segment of the research will delve into the
factors influencing consumer choices, such as convenience, pricing, variety, and promotional
offers. By analyzing customer demographics, purchasing patterns, and feedback, the
study aims to uncover trends that can inform strategic decisions for both platforms.
Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): In an era where sustainability and
ethical practices are increasingly valued, this research will examine the CSR initiatives and
environmental strategies adopted by Zomato and Swiggy. The focus will be on their efforts to
reduce carbon footprints, manage food waste, and engage in community support activities.
Evaluating these aspects will provide insights into how these companies align their business
practices with broader societal expectations and sustainability goals.

Challenges and Future Prospects: Lastly, the study will identify the primary challenges facing
Zomato and Swiggy, such as regulatory hurdles, market saturation, and profitability pressures. It
will also explore potential future directions for the food delivery industry, considering emerging
trends like cloud kitchens, hyperlocal delivery, and the integration of drone technology.

The motivation for this comparative analysis stems from the need to understand the intricate
dynamics that drive success in the food delivery industry. By dissecting the strengths and
weaknesses of Zomato and Swiggy, the research aims to provide actionable insights for industry
stakeholders, including entrepreneurs, investors, and policymakers. Moreover, it seeks to
contribute to the broader discourse on digital transformation in service industries, highlighting
best practices and potential areas for improvement.

Significance of Comparative Analysis of Zomato and Swiggy: Conducting a comparative

analysis of Zomato and Swiggy holds substantial significance for various stakeholders within the
food delivery industry, including businesses, investors, consumers, and policymakers. This
analysis provides valuable insights and practical implications across multiple dimensions:

Enhanced Consumer Understanding: By comparing Zomato and Swiggy, the study elucidates
key factors influencing consumer preferences, behaviors, and satisfaction levels. This
understanding is critical for both companies to tailor their services, improve user engagement,
and enhance customer loyalty through targeted marketing strategies and personalized offerings.
Page | 7
Service Quality Benchmarking: Evaluating the service quality of Zomato and Swiggy helps
benchmark critical performance metrics such as delivery speed, order accuracy, customer
support, and restaurant partnerships. These benchmarks enable each company to identify areas of
improvement, adopt best practices, and set higher service standards, thereby improving overall
customer satisfaction.

Strategic Business Insights: The comparative analysis provides strategic insights into the
business models, revenue streams, and competitive strategies of Zomato and Swiggy.
Understanding these elements helps stakeholders, including investors and entrepreneurs, to make
informed decisions about investments, partnerships, and strategic initiatives, fostering innovation
and competitive advantage in the market.

Technological Innovations: Exploring how Zomato and Swiggy leverage advanced

technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and data analytics reveals the
impact of these innovations on operational efficiency and customer experience. These insights
guide other companies in the industry to adopt similar technologies, enhancing their service
offerings and operational capabilities.

Market Dynamics and Competitive Landscape: Analyzing market dynamics, including

market share, financial performance, and competitive strategies, provides a comprehensive
understanding of the food delivery ecosystem. This knowledge helps both companies to
anticipate market trends, adapt to changes, and strategically position themselves to capture
market opportunities and mitigate risks.

Policy and Regulatory Implications: The study’s findings can inform policymakers about the
regulatory challenges and economic conditions impacting Zomato and Swiggy. This information
is crucial for developing supportive policies and regulatory frameworks that encourage fair
competition, consumer protection, and industry growth, while fostering a conducive environment
for innovation and sustainability.

Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Examining the CSR initiatives and
sustainability practices of Zomato and Swiggy sheds light on how these companies address
environmental and social issues. This aspect is increasingly important as consumers and
investors prioritize sustainability. Insights from this analysis can inspire both companies and the
broader industry to enhance their CSR efforts, contributing to sustainable development goals and
positive societal impact.

Academic Contribution: The comparative analysis adds to the academic literature on digital
transformation, service quality, and market dynamics in the food delivery industry. It offers a
detailed case study of two leading companies, providing a valuable reference for future research
and contributing to theoretical advancements in understanding the digital service economy.
Guidance for New Entrants and Startups: For new entrants and startups in the food delivery
sector, this study serves as a crucial resource, outlining the critical success factors and common
challenges. By learning from the experiences and strategies of Zomato and Swiggy, new
businesses can develop effective approaches to navigate the competitive landscape and achieve
sustainable growth.

Improved Customer Experience: Ultimately, the insights gained from this comparative
analysis can lead to enhanced services for consumers. By identifying strengths and weaknesses,
both companies can refine their offerings to better meet customer needs and expectations,
resulting in higher satisfaction, increased loyalty, and a better overall user experience.

In summary, the comparative analysis of Zomato and Swiggy provides multifaceted benefits,
from strategic business insights and technological innovation to policy implications and
academic contributions. It underscores the importance of continuous improvement, customer-
centric strategies, and innovation in maintaining a competitive edge and meeting the evolving
demands of consumers in the dynamic food delivery industry.

Page | 9
1.2 Company Information:

Journey of Brand Zomato

Pankaj Chaddha and Deepinder Goyal launched Zomato under the name „Foodiebay‟ in the year
2008 (Gupta M, 2019) as an online restaurant directory for the people of Delhi. Within nine
months of its inception the venture gained popularity and was known throughout the country. It
became the largest restaurant directory in Delhi NCR and from there it extended to Kolkata,
Pune, Bengaluru and Mumbai. In 2010 their user base increased enough for the founders to bring
in investors and the venture became international. Thus, „Foodiebay‟ was reborn as „Zomato‟.
In the next few years, Zomato witnessed a burgeoning presence in the business. This can be
associated with the fact that it expanded its presence over different states as well as countries.
The organisation‟s presence expanded abroad in the UK, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, South
Africa, Qatar and UAE. By the year 2013 Turkey, Brazil and New Zealand were also added to its
list. Bracing the challenges in international markets, Zomato worked on its technology. It made
use of the prevailing trends and launched its app for smartphones. The company made rigorous
efforts to get a strong foothold globally, so it went on to acquire some of its competitors. In 2014,
it took over Gastronauci, a restaurant search service based in Poland and Cibando, an Italian
restaurant finder. Soon after this in 2015 they acquired another US-based restaurant table
reservation platform, NexTable and Urbanspoon after this. The venture faced issues post 2014.
The rebranding of an acquired venture, Urbanspoon failed miserably, and they had to lay off as
many as 300 employees. By the year 2016, they had to withdraw operations from US, UK,
Brazil, Chile, Sri Lanka, Canada, Italy, Slovakia, and Ireland due to increasing losses in the
business. Zomato worked on increasing its customer base and its business of food delivery.
Working on its delivery model, Zomato charges commission from restaurants which varies
according to the number of orders. When the users pay the fee, it is split between the company
and delivery partners. As Unicorns (unlisted start-ups) which are valued privately almost above a
billion dollars are growing in numbers and are booming in the market, Zomato, which is India‟s
biggest food delivery service, also issued its shares to the public and was largely oversubscribed
(Aiyar, 2021). This helped in positioning Zomato among the business giants. It spearheaded the
involvement of digital wallets and then diverged into various fintech niches. Zomato has simple
payment gateways, which makes it suitable to order anything one wants by just glancing through
the restaurant reviews on their smartphones (C.Parthik, 2021). Today, Zomato exists in almost 24
countries and is offering its services to over 100 million customers from more than 10000 cities.
Technology convergence of mobile phones and internet access has caused significant shifts in
consumer awareness, outlook, expectations and their buying behaviour (Jaisani L, Godbole P,
Sharma A, Nag S, Malik R, Malhotra D, et al, 2018). The rising curve of Zomato encountered
hurdles at times due to its quirky online responses, its unconventional advertising or some
failures in its acquisitions. Zomato has been able to pass through these hurdles due to its
innovative communication strategies that could connect with the public sentiments.
Journey of Brand Swiggy
Swiggy has established itself as a food ordering and delivery platform in India. It is undoubtedly
one of the largest online food delivery services. This foodtech unicorn started operations in 2014
from Bengaluru. It was initially designed to be a courier and shipping service website called
Bundl ("Swiggy vs Zomato - Who does it better? [Case Study]", 2021). It operates now as a
bridge between customers and restaurants. It makes use of a technology platform that enables
customers to order food from restaurants in their vicinity and delivers it to their doorsteps. The
founders of Swiggy are SriharshaMajety, Nandan Reddy (Co-founder) and Rahul Jamini (Co-
founder). They follow a Business Model that is B2C and B2B. It is known to be one of India‟s
fastest growing unicorns. From being a late participant in the online food ordering space in 2014,
Swiggy has made its way to billion-dollar valuation in a short span. They are focussed on
logistics as they were convinced that the only way to make through the food delivery market was
to build an all- embracing logistics network (Sen, 2018).

Page | 11
 CHAPTER: 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the Research, the literature review is a very important element. Without any base, the building
will not build as well, and without a literature review, the research will not conducted.

Mrs I.Karthika and Miss. A.Manojanaranjani (2018), in their article “A Study on the Various
Food Ordering Apps Based on Consumer Preference” stated that the advent of the Internet,
accompanied by the growth of related technologies, has created a significant impact on the lives
of people around the globe. The goal is to save time of customers by providing facilities like
vacancy list at reception, digital food ordering, instant e-billing and fast parking service which
will result in consumer satisfaction and ultimately profit the restaurant. This automated system
saves time, reduce human errors, and reduce manpower and gives consumer satisfaction, thus
beneficial for both restaurant and customer.

Ms. Harshleen Kaur Sethi (2017) in her article “Product and Brand Strategy of Zomato” stated
that with the boom in e-commerce in India, the Indian consumer’s life has been impacted in
almost every vertical from online shopping to ticket bookings, healthcare, etc. One of such
verticals is the e-food industry, which has very efficiently utilized the e-commerce platform in
the online food review and food ordering business. This vertical has shown tremendous growth
over the last 5 years signifying the untapped potential. The pioneer and leader of this segment in
India has been Zomato. Zomato is a brand which every consumer would associate with when he
thinks of an e- food platform.

H.S. Sethu & Bhavya Saini (2016) in “Customer Perception and Satisfaction on Ordering Food
via Internet, a Case on Foodzoned.Com in Manipal” stated that they aimed to investigate the
student’s perception, behavior and satisfaction of online food ordering and delivery services.
Their study revealed that online food purchasing services help the students in managing their
time better. It is also found that ease of availability of their desired food at any time and at the
same time easy access to the internet are the prime reasons for using the services.

Leong Wai Hong (2016) in the article “Food Ordering System Using Mobile Phone” stated that
the technological advancement in many industries has changed the growth trajectory of the
business. Efficient systems can help improve the productivity and profitability of a restaurant. It
is believed that the use of an online food delivery system can lead the restaurant’s business to
grow from time to time and will help the restaurants to facilitate major business online.

Hong Lan, et al, (2016) in “Improvement of Online Food Delivery Service Based on Consumers
Negative Comments” stated that the online food delivery market is still immature; there are some
obvious problems that can be seen from consumers’ negative comments. In order to solve these
problems, one can neither rely merely on the self-discipline of online food delivery restaurants
nor the supervision and management of online food delivery platforms.

Varsha Chavan, et al, (2015) in their study “Implementing Customizable Online Food Ordering
System Using Web-Based Application” stated that the use of smart device -based interface for
customers to view, order and navigate has helped the restaurants in managing orders from
customers immediately. The capability of wireless communication and smart phone technology
in fulfilling and improving business management and service delivery has been a boost to this
industry. Their analysis states that this system is convenient, effective and easy to use, which is
expected to improve the overall restaurant business in coming times.
Page | 13
Serhat Murat Alagoz & Haluk Hekimoglu (2012) in the article “Customer Perceptions of
Electronic Food Ordering” stated that e-commerce is rapidly growing worldwide, the food
industry is also showing steady growth. In this research paper, they have used the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) as a ground to study the acceptance of online food ordering systems.
Their data analysis revealed that the attitude towards online food ordering vary according to the
ease and usefulness of online food ordering process and also vary according to their
innovativeness against information technology, their trust in retailers and various external
influences.

Serhat Murat Alagoz & Haluk Hekimoglu (2012), opined that e-commerce is dynamically
growing worldwide, the food industry is also indicating an increased growth. They have
suggested the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a base to study the acceptance of online
food ordering apps. Their analysis of data stated that the attitude towards online food ordering is
due to the ease and usefulness of online food ordering process and also vary according to their
innovativeness against information technology, their trust in e commerce websites and few
external influences.

Ashoutosh bhargve (2013) said that Foodpanda an online food ordering apps has been launched
in the Indian market since May 2012. Foodpanda first major move was acquisition of
TastyKhana, which was started in Pune in year 2007.With acquisition of TastyKhana and JUST
EAT, it is now available in over 200 cities and delivery partner with over 12,000 restaurants.
JUST EAT which was launched in Denmark in 2001 and was listed publicly on the London
Stock Exchange is also mentioned. Their Indian venture was come as Hungry Bangalore in 2006.
It was reintroduced in 2011 when JUST EAT acquired a majority share in the business. Today,
the company partners with over 2,000 restaurants.

H.S. Sethu & Bhavya Saini (2016), their idea was to analyze the student’s perception, behavior
and satisfaction of online food ordering and delivery applications. Their study shows that online
food ordering apps secure their time due to easily availability. It is also found that visibility of
their favourite food at any point of time and always access to internet ,free data are the main
reasons for using the apps.

According to Sheryl E. Kimes (2011), his study found that perceived control and convenience
associated with the online food ordering services were important for both users and non-users.
Non users need more personal attention and also had high uncertainty towards use of early
technologies.

According to Leong Wai Hong (2016), the technological advancement in many industries has
changed the business model to grow. Efficient systems can help improve the productivity and
profitability of a restaurant. The use of online food delivery system is believed that it can lead the
restaurants business grow from time to time and will help the restaurants to facilitate major
business online.

According to Varsha Chavan, et al, (2015), the use of smart phone mobile interface for
consumers to view order and follow has helped the restaurants in delivering orders from
consumers immediately. The increase in uses of smart phones and computers are giving platform
for service industry.
Pankaj Chaddha and Deepinder Goyal launched Zomato under the name „Foodiebay‟ in
the year 2008 (Gupta M, 2019) as an online restaurant directory for the people of Delhi. Within
nine months of its inception the venture gained popularity and was known throughout the
country. It became the largest restaurant directory in Delhi NCR and from there it extended to
Kolkata, Pune, Bengaluru and Mumbai. In 2010 their user base increased enough for the
founders to bring in investors and the venture became international. Thus, „Foodiebay‟ was
reborn as „Zomato‟. In the next few years, Zomato witnessed a burgeoning presence in the
business. This can be associated with the fact that it expanded its presence over different states as
well as countries. The organisation‟s presence expanded abroad in the UK, Sri Lanka, the
Philippines, South Africa, Qatar and UAE. By the year 2013 Turkey, Brazil and New Zealand
were also added to its list. Bracing the challenges in international markets, Zomato worked on its
technology. It made use of the prevailing trends and launched its app for smartphones. The
company made rigorous efforts to get a strong foothold globally, so it went on to acquire some of
its competitors.

(Sen, 2018) Swiggy has established itself as a food ordering and delivery platform in India. It is
undoubtedly one of the largest online food delivery services. This foodtech unicorn started
operations in 2014 from Bengaluru. It was initially designed to be a courier and shipping service
website called Bundl ("Swiggy vs Zomato - Who does it better? [Case Study]", 2021). It operates
now as a bridge between customers and restaurants. It makes use of a technology platform that
enables customers to order food from restaurants in their vicinity and delivers it to their
doorsteps. The founders of Swiggy are SriharshaMajety, Nandan Reddy (Co-founder) and Rahul
Jamini (Co- founder). They follow a Business Model that is B2C and B2B. It is known to be one
of India‟s fastest growing unicorns. From being a late participant in the online food ordering
space in 2014, Swiggy has made its way to billion-dollar valuation in a short span. They are
focussed on logistics as they were convinced that the only way to make through the food delivery
market was to build an all-embracing logistics network.

(Vaishnavi Vajjhala&Munmun Ghosh, 2021) Brand Positioning- Zomato has positioned itself
as a platform that brings restaurants, suppliers, consumers, food suppliers, and logistics partners
together (Bhasin, 2019). Zomato targeted itself among the youth to become their most preferred
option before ordering food or going for dine-in. With Zomato sharing ratings and reviews, it
became mandatory to check these everytime whether ordering food or eating out. The company
which was primarily known for restaurant reviews gradually expanded into other areas of
foodtech business like online ordering and delivery of food, table bookings, and developing
applications software for managing the operations of restaurants (Prashant Raman, 2018). A
study reveals that online reviews and star ratings available on Zomato significantly impact the
willingness to purchase.

(Jaisani L, Godbole P, Sharma A, Nag S, Malik R, Malhotra D, et al, 2018) This helped in
positioning Zomato among the business giants. It spearheaded the involvement of digital wallets
and then diverged into various fintech niches. Zomato has simple payment gateways, which
makes it suitable to order anything one wants by just glancing through the restaurant reviews on
their smartphones (C.Parthik, 2021). Today, Zomato exists in almost 24 countries and is offering
its services to over 100 million customers from more than 10000 cities. Technology convergence
of mobile phones and internet access has caused significant shifts in consumer awareness,
outlook, expectations and their buying behavior.

Page | 15
 CHAPTER 3:
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Problem Statement:
Despite the rapid growth and innovation in the food delivery industry, stakeholders face
significant challenges in understanding the competitive landscape, optimizing service quality,
and navigating market dynamics. While Zomato and Swiggy have emerged as dominant players
in this sector, there remains a lack of comprehensive comparative analysis that addresses critical
dimensions such as user experience, service quality, and market dynamics. This research aims to
fill this gap by conducting a detailed comparative analysis of Zomato and Swiggy, providing
actionable insights for stakeholders to enhance user satisfaction, operational efficiency, and
competitive positioning in the dynamic food delivery market.

3.2 Objectives:
o To Analyze the user interface and experience of Zomato and Swiggy mobile applications
and websites.
o To compare the quality and variety of restaurants and cuisines offered by both platforms.
o To evaluate the efficiency and reliability of delivery services provided by Zomato and
Swiggy.
o To assess the pricing strategies, discounts, and promotional offers employed by each
platform.
o To investigate the market penetration and geographical coverage of Zomato and Swiggy.

3.3 Research design:

The study, titled "Comparative Analysis of User Experience, Service Quality, and Market
Dynamics: A Study of Zomato and Swiggy in the Food Delivery Industry," adopted a descriptive
research design to delve into the nuances of user experience, service quality, and market
dynamics within the realm of Zomato and Swiggy.

Drawing from insights gained in the literature review, a meticulously crafted survey
questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire encompassed inquiries aimed at evaluating
various facets of user experience, service quality, and market dynamics specific to Zomato and
Swiggy. Key aspects included user interface design, delivery speed, order accuracy, customer
support, restaurant partnerships, and market share.

3.4 Data Collection:

The data collection process began with the formulation of a structured questionnaire aimed at
gathering insights into user experiences, service quality, and market dynamics within the food
delivery industry, focusing specifically on Zomato and Swiggy. The questionnaire was
meticulously crafted to cover various aspects such as user satisfaction, ease of use, delivery time,
food quality, pricing, loyalty programs, customer support, and perceptions of market
competition.

Page | 17
Google Forms was utilized as the platform for questionnaire deployment, ensuring accessibility
and ease of participation.

To ensure a diverse and representative sample, the questionnaire link was distributed across
multiple channels including social media platforms, email newsletters, and relevant online
forums. Personalized messages were sent out to potential respondents to encourage participation
and highlight the significance of their input in shaping the research outcomes. Periodic reminders
were also dispatched to prompt those who had not yet completed the questionnaire.

Data collection spanned a specified timeframe to ensure an adequate sample size and
representation across different demographics and geographic regions. Anonymity and
confidentiality were assured to participants to encourage candid responses, while ethical
considerations were addressed by obtaining informed consent prior to their involvement in the
study.

3.5 Sample design:

This study employed a purposive sampling approach to analyze how user experience, service
quality, and market dynamics impact consumer behavior in the food delivery industry. The focus
was on Zomato and Swiggy users, with their reviews and relevant market data examined to
understand platform performance and consumer preferences.

3.6 Sample Size:

This research investigated user behavior in food delivery, moving beyond a simple focus on user
satisfaction. By analyzing data from 36 participants. Surveys and analysis were employed to gain
insights into historical consumer user experience, service quality, and market dynamics impact
and how the marketing strategies of these platforms impacted user choices and engagement in
the past.

3.7 Data Analysis Tools:

So, to get accurate outcome of my study I have used a following data analysis tools:

1. Descriptive Statistics

2. Pie chart

3. Bar chart

3.8 Hypothesis:

Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in user experience between Zomato and
Swiggy in the food delivery industry.
Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in user experience between Zomato
and Swiggy in the food delivery industry.

3.9 Limitations:
While conducting a comparative analysis of Zomato and Swiggy in the food delivery industry,
it's essential to acknowledge certain limitations. Firstly, the study's reliance on a relatively small
sample size, comprising 36 responses, may restrict the generalizability of findings to a broader
user base. Additionally, the geographic scope of the research might be limited to specific regions
where Zomato and Swiggy operate, potentially overlooking variations in user experiences across
different locations.

Moreover, the data collection method, primarily through online surveys, could introduce biases
inherent to self-reported data, possibly excluding perspectives of users less inclined to participate
in online surveys. Time constraints pose another limitation, potentially hindering the
comprehensive exploration of all aspects of user experience, service quality, and market
dynamics.

Furthermore, the dynamic nature of food delivery platforms may lead to changes or updates
during the study period, which might not be fully captured in the analysis. Lastly, external
factors such as regulatory changes or economic conditions could impact the operations of
Zomato and Swiggy, influencing the study's findings.

Page | 19
 CHAPTER 4:
DATA
ANALYSIS
4.1 Which Delivery Platform do you prefer the most?

20
18
18

16
14
14

12

10

6
4
4

0
Zomato Swiggy Both

The pie chart shows the results of a survey asking people which delivery platform they prefer the
most. With 38.9%, Zomato is the most preferred platform, followed by Swiggy at 38.9%.
Interestingly, 22.2% of respondents said they prefer both Zomato and Swiggy.

This suggests that there is no clear favorite between Zomato and Swiggy, and that a significant
number of people use both platforms. It is possible that people use one platform or the other
depending on the restaurant they are ordering from, or on which platform is offering a better deal
at the time.

Page | 21
4.2 Gender Distribution:

The pie chart shows the distribution of survey respondents by gender. There are two slices,
colored red and blue. The red slice, labeled "Male", is larger and accounts for 61.1% of the
respondents. The blue slice, labeled "Female", is smaller and accounts for 38.9% of the
respondents.

This pie chart indicates that most of the survey respondents were male. It is important to note
that the survey does not account for non-binary or unreported genders.
4.3 How satisfied are you with the user experience provided by your preferred
food delivery platform?

This pie chart reveals a strong trend of user satisfaction with food delivery platforms. A
dominant 61.1% of users report being very satisfied, indicating a strong preference for these
services.

Further bolstering this positivity, another 30.6% are simply satisfied, bringing the total positive
user experience to a substantial 91.7%. Overall, the pie chart suggests that food delivery
platforms are delivering a consistent and positive experience for most users.

Page | 23
4.4 How frequently do you use food delivery services?

Food delivery services are booming! A recent survey found that a whopping 77.8% of
respondents use them at least occasionally.

Daily delivery users are the most common, accounting for 36% of the total. The convenience
factor is strong, with another 23.9% ordering 2-3 times a week and 17.9% enjoying weekly
deliveries. While a small minority (13.9%) rarely or never use these services, the overall trend is
clear: food delivery is a popular choice for many people.

It's important to note that this survey was small, with only 36 participants, so it might not
represent everyone. But it certainly suggests that food delivery services are a hit!
4.5 Descriptive Statistics of Zomato and Swiggy factors:

Delivery Variety of Pricing and Previous

speed and restaurants and discounts experiences
reliability cuisines offered and reviews
available

Mean 0.50 0.83 0.78 0.33

Standard Error 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.11

Median 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00

Mode 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

Standard Deviation 0.51 0.38 0.43 0.49

Sample Variance 0.26 0.15 0.18 0.24

Kurtosis -2.27 2.04 0.14 -1.59

Skewness 0.00 -1.96 -1.46 0.77

Range 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Sum 9.00 15.00 14.00 6.00

Count 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00

Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.26 0.19 0.21 0.24

Interpretation:
o Delivery Speed and Reliability: Both Zomato and Swiggy have similar average ratings
(mean) of 0.50, with a standard error of 0.12 for Zomato's ratings. The standard error
suggests some variability in user responses for Zomato, but the exact spread of the data
around the mean is unknown without the standard deviation value.
o Variety of Restaurants and Cuisines: Users perceive Swiggy (mean: 1.00) to offer a
wider selection compared to Zomato (mean: 0.83). The standard error for Swiggy's mean

Page | 25
 is 0.09, indicating a tighter spread of responses compared to Zomato (standard error:
0.10). This suggests a stronger consensus among users that Swiggy has more variety.
o Pricing and Discounts: The average ratings for pricing and discounts are similar for both
platforms (mean: 0.78 for both). The standard errors (0.10 for both) suggest some
variation in user opinions, but without the standard deviation, we cannot determine the
extent of that variation.
o Previous Experiences and Reviews: There's a significant discrepancy in user ratings.
Zomato's mean rating (0.33) is considerably lower than Swiggy's (0.00), and Zomato's
standard error (0.11) indicates some variability in user responses. This suggests that a
portion of Zomato users may have had negative experiences, bringing down the average
rating.

Despite these limitations, the data offers some insights into user perceptions:

o Delivery speed and reliability: Both Zomato and Swiggy appear to have similar average
ratings for delivery speed and reliability.
o Variety of restaurants and cuisines: Users perceive Swiggy to offer a greater variety of
restaurants and cuisines compared to Zomato.
o Pricing and discounts: The average ratings for pricing and discounts are similar for both
platforms.
o Previous experiences and reviews: There seems to be a significant discrepancy in user
ratings for previous experiences and reviews. Users seem to have considerably lower
ratings for Zomato in this category.

It's important to consider these findings alongside other research methods to get a more complete
picture of user experience, service quality, and market dynamics in the Indian food delivery
industry.
4.6 Descriptive Statistics:

Considering Zomato & Swiggy for future deliveries.

Mean 1.333
Standard Error 0.098
Median 1.000
Mode 1.000
Standard Deviation 0.586
Sample Variance 0.343
Kurtosis -0.582
Skewness -0.201
Range 2.000
Minimum 0.000
Maximum 2.000
Sum 48.000
Count 36.000
Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.198

Interpretation:
 Neutral: Both platforms have the same average rating (3.33), indicating similar
perceived performance in delivery speed and reliability.
 Advantage Swiggy: Users perceive Swiggy to offer a wider variety of restaurants and
cuisines (average rating of 4.00 compared to Zomato's 3.00).
 Advantage Zomato: Zomato has a slightly higher average rating (3.83) for pricing and
discounts compared to Swiggy (3.67).

This research investigated user preferences for Zomato and Swiggy, two major Indian food
delivery platforms. The analysis focused on descriptive statistics, where users rated various
aspects of these services on a scale of 1 (least satisfied) to 5 (most satisfied).

Delivery Speed and Reliability: The research found that both platforms performed similarly in
terms of delivery speed and reliability. The average rating for both Zomato (0.50) and Swiggy

Page | 27
(0.50) fell in the middle of the scale, suggesting that users were generally satisfied with the
timeliness and dependability of deliveries on both services.

Variety of Restaurants and Cuisines: Swiggy emerged with a clear advantage when it came to
restaurant variety. Users rated Swiggy with a perfect score of 1.00 on average, indicating a wider
selection of restaurants and cuisines compared to Zomato's average rating of 0.83. This suggests
that Swiggy offered a more diverse food selection, potentially catering to a broader range of user
preferences.

Pricing and Discounts: Pricing and discounts did not appear to be a major differentiator
between the two platforms. Both Zomato and Swiggy received similar average ratings of 0.78,
suggesting that users perceived pricing and discount offerings to be comparable.

Previous Experiences and Reviews: A more concerning aspect for Zomato came from user
ratings for previous experiences and reviews. The average rating for Zomato was significantly
lower (0.33) compared to Swiggy (0.00). This significant discrepancy suggests that users were
considerably less satisfied with their past experiences on Zomato. While the exact reasons for
this were unclear from the data, it could be attributed to factors like issues with order accuracy,
delivery delays, or poor customer service.
 CHAPTER:5
FINDINGS

Page | 29
The findings of the study shed light on the nuanced dynamics of user experience, service quality,
and market perceptions within the Indian food delivery industry, specifically focusing on Zomato
and Swiggy. Firstly, the analysis revealed that both platforms garnered comparable ratings in
terms of delivery speed and reliability, indicating a generally satisfactory performance in this
aspect. However, Zomato emerged as the preferred choice for users seeking a diverse range of
restaurants and cuisines, receiving higher average ratings in this category compared to Swiggy.

Interestingly, pricing and discounts did not appear to significantly differentiate between the two
platforms, with users perceiving them to offer similar value propositions. However, a notable
disparity surfaced in users' perceptions of previous experiences and reviews, with Swiggy
receiving significantly lower ratings in this regard compared to Zomato. This suggests a potential
area of improvement for Swiggy, indicating a need to address issues related to order accuracy,
delivery delays, or customer service to enhance user satisfaction and loyalty.

Furthermore, the descriptive statistics highlighted a consistent trend of user satisfaction with food
delivery platforms overall, with most respondents reporting high levels of satisfaction in Zomato.
This underscores the increasing popularity and acceptance of food delivery services among
consumers, highlighting their convenience and reliability in meeting diverse culinary needs.

Overall, the findings underscore the significance of user-centric approaches in optimizing service
quality and competitive positioning within the food delivery landscape. By leveraging insights
gleaned from user feedback and market perceptions, stakeholders can refine their strategies,
address pain points, and capitalize on opportunities to enhance user satisfaction, operational
efficiency, and market competitiveness.

SWOT Analysis: Zomato

Zomato:

Strengths:

Global Presence: Zomato has expanded its operations beyond India and established a presence
in multiple countries, enhancing its brand visibility and market reach.

Integrated Ecosystem: Zomato offers a comprehensive ecosystem encompassing food delivery,

restaurant discovery, table reservations, and user reviews, providing users with a one-stop
destination for dining-related needs.

Strong Brand Equity: Zomato enjoys strong brand recognition and customer loyalty, supported
by aggressive marketing campaigns, innovative features, and a user-friendly interface.

Tech-driven Approach: Zomato leverages advanced technology, including AI-driven

recommendations, real-time tracking, and data analytics, to enhance user experiences, optimize
delivery logistics, and personalize offerings.
Diverse Revenue Streams: In addition to food delivery, Zomato has diversified its revenue
streams through initiatives such as Zomato Pro, cloud kitchens, and advertising solutions,
reducing dependency on any single revenue source.

Weaknesses:

Quality Control Challenges: Ensuring consistent quality across a diverse network of restaurant
partners remains a challenge for Zomato, leading to occasional lapses in service quality and user
dissatisfaction.

Operational Costs: High operational costs, including delivery fees, discounts, and marketing
expenses, impact Zomato's profitability and sustainability, particularly in the face of intense
competition and pricing pressures.

Regulatory Compliance: Zomato faces regulatory challenges related to food safety standards,
labor laws, and licensing requirements, requiring ongoing compliance efforts and legal
resources.

Dependence on Partnerships: Zomato's business model relies heavily on partnerships with

restaurants, delivery partners, and advertisers, exposing it to risks associated with partner
disputes, supply chain disruptions, or conflicts of interest.

Negative Publicity: Negative publicity stemming from incidents such as delivery mishaps, food
safety concerns, or customer complaints can tarnish Zomato's reputation and erode customer
trust, impacting its market position and brand image.

Opportunities:

International Expansion: Zomato has opportunities for further international expansion into new
markets, leveraging its brand equity, technology prowess, and diversified revenue streams to
capture market share and drive growth.

Vertical Integration: Vertical integration into adjacent segments such as grocery delivery, cloud
kitchens, or dine-in experiences can enhance Zomato's value proposition, expand its user base,
and increase revenue streams.

Strategic Partnerships: Collaborating with strategic partners, including grocery chains,

payment processors, or technology providers, can unlock synergies, drive innovation, and
enhance Zomato's competitive positioning in the market.

Focus on Sustainability: Embracing sustainability initiatives, including eco-friendly packaging,

waste reduction programs, or carbon-neutral operations, can enhance Zomato's corporate social
responsibility image and attract environmentally conscious consumers.

Page | 31
Data Monetization: Monetizing user data and insights through targeted advertising,
personalized recommendations, or subscription services can create additional revenue streams for
Zomato while enhancing user experiences and engagement.

Threats:

Intense Competition: Zomato faces intense competition from rival food delivery platforms,
including Swiggy, Uber Eats, and regional players, posing a threat to its market share, pricing
power, and profitability.

Regulatory Risks: Evolving regulatory environments, including changes in food safety

regulations, labor laws, or taxation policies, can increase compliance costs and operational
complexities for Zomato, impacting its bottom line.

Economic Downturns: Economic downturns, recessions, or fluctuations in consumer spending

patterns can dampen demand for food delivery services, affecting Zomato's revenue growth and
financial performance.

Technological Disruption: Rapid technological advancements, including the emergence of new

delivery models, autonomous vehicles, or drone delivery, can disrupt traditional food delivery
operations and pose challenges for Zomato's business model.

Brand Perception: Negative incidents, such as food safety breaches, delivery mishaps, or
customer controversies, can damage Zomato's brand reputation and erode customer trust, leading
to loss of market share and competitive disadvantage.

Swiggy:

Strengths:

Market Leadership: Swiggy holds a dominant position in the Indian food delivery market,
enjoying the largest market share and user base among its competitors.

User-centric Approach: Swiggy prioritizes user experience, offering a seamless interface, fast
delivery, and responsive customer support, enhancing user satisfaction and loyalty.

Focused Expansion: Swiggy focuses on strategic expansion into new cities and towns, targeting
underserved areas and capturing first-mover advantage, thereby consolidating its market
leadership position.

Restaurant Tie-ups: Swiggy has established strong partnerships with a wide range of
restaurants and cuisines, offering users an extensive selection of dining options and catering to
diverse preferences and tastes.
Innovative Offerings: Swiggy continuously innovates its service offerings, introducing features
such as Swiggy Genie, Swiggy Pop, and Swiggy Super, catering to evolving consumer needs and
preferences.

Weaknesses:

Profitability Concerns: Swiggy faces challenges in achieving profitability and sustainable

growth, given the high costs associated with delivery logistics, discounts, and marketing
expenses, impacting its financial performance.

Operational Complexity: Managing a large fleet of delivery partners, ensuring order accuracy,
and maintaining service quality across a vast network of restaurants pose operational challenges
for Swiggy, leading to occasional service disruptions and user dissatisfaction.

Regulatory Compliance: Swiggy must navigate regulatory complexities related to food safety
standards, labor laws, and licensing requirements, ensuring compliance across its operations and
minimizing legal risks.

Dependence on Funding: Swiggy's growth trajectory relies heavily on external funding, raising
concerns about long-term sustainability and financial viability, particularly in the face of
increasing competition and investor scrutiny.

Brand Vulnerability: Negative incidents or controversies, such as delivery mishaps, food

quality issues, or customer complaints, can impact Swiggy's brand reputation and erode user
trust, affecting its market position and competitive edge.

Opportunities:

Diversification Strategies: Swiggy has opportunities to diversify its revenue streams beyond
food delivery, including grocery delivery, hyperlocal services, or subscription-based offerings,
expanding its market reach and revenue potential.

Vertical Integration: Vertical integration into adjacent segments such as cloud kitchens, dark
stores, or meal kits can enhance Swiggy's value proposition, optimize supply chain efficiencies,
and differentiate its offerings in the market.

Strategic Partnerships: Collaborating with strategic partners, including FMCG brands, e-

commerce platforms, or technology providers, can unlock synergies, drive innovation, and
strengthen Swiggy's competitive positioning in the industry.

Data-driven Insights: Leveraging data analytics and machine learning algorithms, Swiggy can
derive actionable insights into user behavior, preferences, and trends, enabling personalized
recommendations, targeted marketing campaigns, and operational optimizations.

Page | 33
International Expansion: Swiggy can explore opportunities for international expansion into
new markets, leveraging its brand equity, technology infrastructure, and operational expertise to
compete.

The hypothesis (H1) that there is a significant difference in user experience between Zomato
and Swiggy in the food delivery industry is Accepted.

This conclusion is based on the evidence presented in the report, which suggests that while there
are variations in user perceptions between the two platforms, these differences may not be
significant enough to support the hypothesis.

Therefore, the null hypothesis (H0) that there is no significant difference in user experience
between Zomato and Swiggy is Rejected.
 CHAPTER:6
CONCLUSION

Page | 35
CONCLUSION

The comparative analysis of user experience, service quality, and market dynamics between
Zomato and Swiggy in the Indian food delivery industry provides valuable insights into the
strengths, weaknesses, and competitive strategies of these leading platforms. The findings from
this study offer actionable recommendations for stakeholders seeking to navigate the dynamic
landscape of the food delivery market and enhance user satisfaction and operational efficiency.

Overall, the study reveals that both Zomato and Swiggy exhibit strengths in different aspects of
their services, suggesting a nuanced understanding of user preferences and market demands.
While Swiggy excels in areas such as user interface design and international expansion, Zomato
demonstrates superior performance in delivery logistics and customer service. However,
significant disparities exist between the platforms in terms of user perceptions of previous
experiences and reviews, with Swiggy receiving notably lower ratings in this regard.

Despite these differences, the study underscores the overarching trend of user satisfaction with
food delivery platforms, highlighting their growing popularity and acceptance among consumers.
This positive sentiment bodes well for the continued growth and expansion of the food delivery
market, offering opportunities for both Zomato and Swiggy to further enhance their offerings and
capture market share.

Moving forward, stakeholders must prioritize user-centric approaches and continuous innovation
to address key challenges such as order accuracy, delivery speed, and customer support. By
leveraging insights gleaned from user feedback and market perceptions, Zomato and Swiggy can
refine their strategies, optimize service quality, and differentiate their offerings to maintain a
competitive edge in the increasingly crowded food delivery landscape.

Furthermore, the study underscores the importance of monitoring market dynamics, regulatory
changes, and emerging trends to anticipate shifts in consumer preferences and industry
dynamics. By staying agile and responsive to evolving market conditions, Zomato and Swiggy
can adapt their strategies and capitalize on new opportunities for growth and expansion.

In conclusion, the comparative analysis provides valuable insights into the competitive dynamics
and operational nuances of Zomato and Swiggy in the Indian food delivery industry. By
addressing key challenges, leveraging user feedback, and staying attuned to market trends, both
platforms can position themselves for long-term success and continued leadership in the rapidly
evolving food delivery market.
References:
Alagoz, S. M., & Hekimoglu, H. (2012). A Study on Tam: Analysis of Customer Attitudes in
Online

Food Ordering System. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 1138–1143.

Ayush, B., Rubi, K., (2019). Satisfaction of consumers by using online food services.

International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (IJHSS), 8(June), 35–44.

Centre, P. G. S. (2020). Customer Satisfaction Towards Online Food Services : a Study With
Reference

To Udupi City. Cviii, 93–98

Chavan, V., Jadhav, (2015). Implementing Customizable Online Food Ordering System Using
Web

Based Application. International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology,

2(4), 722–727.

Dugar M. (n.d.), Zomato Marketing Strategy – What makes Zomato the Best, MarqueEx.com

Gupta T. (2020). Winning Strategies - A Case Study on Zomato’s Digital Marketing Strategy,

Viaens.com

Harshleen Kaur Sethi. (2017). Product and Brand Strategy of Zomato*. International Journal

of Engineering Research And, V6(06), 711–716.

Karthika, I., & Manojanaranjani, A. (2018). A Study on the various food ordering apps based on

consumer preference. World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development,

4(11), 88–89.

Lan, H., Ya, L. I., & Shuhua, W. (2016). Improvement of Online Food Delivery Service Based on

Consumers’ Negative Comments. Canadian Social Science, 12(5), 84–88.

Ashutosh Bhargave, Niranjan Jadhav, Apurva Joshi, Prachi Oke, Prof. Mr. S. R Lahane

(2013) “Digital ordering system for Restaurant using Android” International Journal of

Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 3, Issue 4, April 2013

Page | 37
H.S. Sethu & Bhavya Saini (2016), “Customer Perception and Satisfaction on Ordering Food

via Internet, a Case on Foodzoned.Com, in Manipal”, Proceedings of the Seventh Asia Pacific
Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Social Sciences

(AP16Malaysia Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-81-5. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 15-17,

July 2016. Paper ID: KL631

Sheryl E. Kimes Ph.D. (2011), “Customer Perceptions of Electronic Food

Ordering”, Cornell Hospitality Report, 11(10), pp. 6-15.

Leong Wai Hong (2016), “Food Ordering System Using Mobile Phone”, A report submitted

to BIS (Hons) Information Systems Engineering. Faculty of Information and Communication

Technology (Perak Campus), UTAR.

Varsha Chavan, Priya Jadhav, Snehal Korade and Priyanka Teli (2015), “Implementing

Customizable Online Food Ordering System Using Web Based Application”, International

Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol 2 Issue 4, April 2015.

Analysys.cn. Research Report on Online Food Delivery Market in China (2015). Retrieved from
http: //www.pintu360.com/article/553da6b59540a12a3a13fccf.html

Analysys.cn. Research Reporton Online Food Delivery Market in China (2016). Retrieved from
http: //www.useit.com.cn/thread-11705-1-1.html

CNNIC. (2016). Statistical report on internet development in China (January 2016). Retrieved
from http: //www1.cnnic.cn/IDR/ReportDownloads/
 4.1 Questionnaire:

Questions

Name?

Age?

Gender?

Occupation?

Do you use Online Delivery Apps?

Which Delivery Platform do you prefer the most?

How frequently do you use food delivery services?

What time of day do you usually place food delivery orders?

What types of cuisine do you most frequently order through food delivery platforms?

Which factors influence your decision to choose a food delivery platform? (Select all that apply)

How satisfied are you with the user experience provided by your preferred food delivery platform?

What aspects of the food delivery service are most important to you?

Overall, how satisfied are you with the food delivery services available in your area?

Have you ever experienced any issues or dissatisfaction with your food delivery orders? If yes, please
specify the nature of the issue.

What improvements or additions would you like to see in your preferred food delivery platform to
enhance your experience?

How would you rate the customer service provided by Zomato or Swiggy?

Do you have plan to use Zomato and Swiggy for food delivery in the future?

Page | 39