Jubilant Foodworks shares crash 8% after Domino’s India operator’s Q4 results. What spooked investors?

The company on Wednesday reported a consolidated net profit of Rs 79.79 crore for the January-March quarter of the financial year 2026, marking a whopping 66% year-on-year (YoY) rise from the Rs 48 crore net profit reported in the corresponding quarter of the previous financial year. The firm’s revenue from operations, meanwhile, grew 19% YoY to Rs 2,499 crore during the quarter under review, as against Rs 2,095 crore in the year-ago period.

Along with the Q4 results, Jubilant FoodWorks said its board recommended a dividend of Rs 1.2 per share (60%) with a face value of Rs 2 each for the financial year that ended on March 31, 2026. This is, however, subject to shareholders’ approval at the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM).

“During March, select markets experienced temporary LPG supply constraints, which had a limited and localised impact on our operations. Overall, this translated into an estimated 30–40 basis points impact on Q4 FY26 like-for-like growth of Domino’s India. The situation was effectively managed through swift operational measures, including temporary menu reconfigurations at a small set of stores, dynamic realignment of delivery catchments, and use of alternative energy sources. Since then, we have progressively reduced our dependence on LPG, diversified vendor sourcing to further de-risk supply, and benefited from improved availability following the Government of India’s interventions. In Q1FY27, the LPG supply has largely normalised, and the business operations have normalised to pre-disruption levels,” the company said in its letter to shareholders.

Nuvama on Jubilant Foodworks

Live Events

Nuvama said that Jubilant Foodworks’ Q4 earnings were “very weak” considering a pickup in growth sentiments across the QSR space and the peer group performing better. “The margin expansion outlook rests on two assumptions: accelerating Domino’s growth and Popeyes turning the corner on losses with scale. Both appear optimistic in the backdrop of rising cost pressures,” it said.
Nuvama maintained its ‘Buy’ rating with a negative bias on the shares of Jubilant Foodworks, and reduced its target price to Rs 646 apiece from Rs 744 apiece earlier. The latest target price implies an upside potential of nearly 37% from the stock’s previous closing price. The brokerage also reduced its earnings estimates for the Domino’s India operator.

Morgan Stanley on Jubilant Foodworks

Morgan Stanley maintained its ‘Equal weight’ rating on the shares of Jubilant Foodworks, with a target price of Rs 486 apiece, implying an upside potential of nearly 3% from the stock’s previous closing price.

The international brokerage highlighted that Domino’s India revenue growth moderated 5% YoY in Q4, and like-for-like growth declined sharply sequentially to 0.2%, ET Now reported. It added that the performance was impacted by lower average bill value and weaker dine-in sales.

Morgan Stanley expects the company to face margin headwinds from LPC, labour and commodity inflation, while noting that it has taken nearly 1.2% price hike so far. According to the international brokerage, weak Q4 and near-term headwinds can keep the stock under pressure.

Goldman Sachs on Jubilant Foodworks

Goldman Sachs maintained its ‘Neutral’ call on the shares of Jubilant Foodworks, but reduced its target price to Rs 460 from Rs 480. The latest target price implies a downside potential of nearly 3% from the stock’s previous closing price.

The international brokerage said that the firm’s Q4 EBITDA was slightly ahead of estimates due to Dunkin’ classification as discontinued operations, ET Now reported. It, however, flagged near-term margin pressure from energy, wage and raw material inflation.

Also Read: Protean eGov Technologies jumps 20% after strong Q4 profit and revenue growth

Goldman Sachs reduced its earnings estimates for the company, while expecting Domino’s India growth to lag peers in FY27.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)