Mukesh Bansal, who had already built and sold Myntra by this point, teamed up with Ankit Nagori in 2016 to start a Bengaluru-based company called Cure.fit. The ambition behind it was broad: one platform covering fitness, food, mental wellness, and basic healthcare, rather than a business built around a single category. That scope didn't hold. Eat.fit, the food delivery arm, was carved out in 2020 and eventually became its own company, Curefoods, under separate ownership. Fitness was what remained and kept growing, and by 2023 the company had rebranded entirely around it, taking the name Cult.fit for both its brand and its core business.
What exists today is a membership-driven fitness business running more than 700 centers across over 40 Indian cities, split between company-owned locations, franchises, and third-party partner gyms, with an app layered on top for live and on-demand classes.
Milestones of Cultfit
Year | Milestone |
2016 | Founded as Cure.fit by Mukesh Bansal and Ankit Nagori |
2016 | Series A funding round led by Accel |
2020 | Eat.fit spun off as an independent company, later became Curefoods |
2021 | Achieved unicorn status through its Series F round, valued at $1.64 billion |
2022 | Tata Digital invests, and the company narrows its focus to fitness |
2023 | Company fully rebrands from Cure.fit to Cult.fit |
2026 | Series G round led by Temasek, raising its stake to approximately 12% |
2026 | Files DRHP with SEBI, and reports EBITDA-positive results for the first time |
Who Owns Cultfit?
No single entity controls Cult.fit. Sixteen funding rounds have spread ownership across institutional funds, the two founders, employees holding stock options, and a group of individual investors, which is fairly typical for a company that has grown this way. Here's how the latest disclosed shareholding pattern breaks down:
Shareholder category | Approximate Stake (%) |
Institutional Funds | 64.86 |
Enterprise and Strategic Investors | 12.04 |
Founders (Mukesh Bansal, Ankit Nagori) | 10.31 |
Employees (ESOPs) | 7.45 |
Angel Investors | 5.48 |
Other Shareholders | 1.21 |
Temasek has been in the picture since 2020, investing through its arm MacRitchie, and has stayed one of the more consistent institutional backers since. Tata Digital came in later, in 2022, right around when the company was refocusing on fitness. Accel's involvement goes back further still, to that first funding round in 2016. Put together, this isn't a company with one promoter family calling the shots the way you'd see at many Indian businesses; it's closer to a handful of long-term institutional investors who've stuck around across multiple rounds.
Cult Fit Business Model
How Cult.fit earns revenue
The core of the business is membership fees. Members sign up for monthly or annual plans that give them access to gym facilities and group workout classes, and that subscription revenue, paid upfront and renewed regularly, is what funds the rest of the business. The app adds a second layer to this: members can pay for access to live and on-demand digital classes as well, which means Cult.fit can earn from people who never walk into a physical center at all, not just the ones who do.
What services it actually offers
Beyond standard gym access, Cult.fit runs group fitness formats like strength training, dance-based workouts, and functional fitness classes at its centers. Through Mind.fit, it also offers yoga and meditation sessions, both in person and digitally. This is why the company describes itself as a wellness platform rather than a plain gym chain: fitness is the core, but the offering extends into mental wellness too.
Where it operates and how big the network is
Cult.fit runs more than 700 centers spread across over 40 Indian cities. These aren't all run the same way. Some locations are owned and operated directly by the company, some are franchised out to local operators, and others are third-party partner gyms that have tied up with Cult.fit to be listed and bookable on its platform. This mixed model is a deliberate choice: owning every single center outright would require far more capital, so blending formats lets the company expand into more cities without that same upfront cost. The network itself has historically skewed toward India's larger metros, though the push to 40-plus cities shows it's been spreading into smaller urban centers as well.
A good part of Cult.fit's growth hasn't come from undercutting competitors on price, but from building a member base that sticks around because of the community built around it, something that's helped it hold its ground in a genuinely crowded market.
Financial Performance of Cult.fit
Particulars (Rs. crore) | FY23 | FY24 | FY25 | FY26 |
Revenue | 693.7 | 926.6 | 1,216 | 1,720 |
EBITDA | -263.2 | -588 | -36 | 129.3 |
EBITDA Margin | -37.9% | -63.4% | 3% | 7.5% |
Net Loss | -625.5 | -888.5 | -480.8 | -251.9 |
Net Loss Margin | -90.2% | -95.9% | -39.6% | -14.6% |
A) Revenue Growth
Cult.fit's revenue climbed from Rs 693.7 crore in FY23 to Rs 926.6 crore in FY24, growth of roughly 33.6%. It grew again to Rs 1,215.5 crore in FY25, up about 31.2%, and further to Rs 1,720.6 crore in FY26, a jump of close to 41.6%. Three straight years of strong growth, with the pace accelerating again in FY26, is notable for a consumer business at this scale. It reflects both the expansion of the center network and the growing contribution from its fitness products and app-based membership.
B) EBITDA
EBITDA performance has improved sharply over the period, although the exact figures need to be read carefully because Cult.fit's latest DRHP reports Adjusted EBITDA separately. Adjusted EBITDA improved from a loss of Rs 140.2 crore in FY24 to a loss of Rs 33.5 crore in FY25, before turning positive at Rs 144.8 crore in FY26. The corresponding adjusted EBITDA margin moved from -15.1% in FY24 to -2.8% in FY25 and then to a positive 8.4% in FY26. This marks a significant operating inflection point, showing that the business has moved much closer to sustainable operating profitability.
C) Profit After Tax
Cult.fit has not reported a net profit at any point in this period; what is on record instead are its losses. FY24 losses stood at Rs 888.5 crore, before narrowing to Rs 480.8 crore in FY25, a reduction of close to 46%. In FY26, the net loss narrowed further to Rs 251.9 crore, representing another reduction of roughly 48%. The company is still some distance from net profitability, but the direction has clearly turned, with both operating performance and the bottom line showing meaningful improvement.
D) Earnings Per Share
Unlike the earlier period, EPS is now available in Cult.fit's latest financial disclosures. Diluted EPS stood at negative Rs 11.92 in FY24, improved to negative Rs 6.40 in FY25, and further improved to negative Rs 3.27 in FY26. While the company continues to report a loss on a per-share basis, the steady improvement in EPS reflects the significant narrowing of its net losses over the past two years.
Recent Transactions and Business Snapshot
Temasek Investment: Temasek invested Rs 440 crore through MacRitchie Investments in early-to-mid 2026, taking its stake in Cult.fit to around 12%.
DRHP Filing: In mid-2026, Cult.fit filed its Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) with SEBI, proposing a Rs 950 crore fresh issue along with an offer for sale by existing investors.
First EBITDA-Positive Year: FY26 marked Cult.fit's first reported year of positive EBITDA, making profitability improvement a key part of its IPO story.
700+ Centres: Cult.fit's physical network has expanded to more than 700 locations across 40+ cities, moving beyond its earlier concentration in major metros.
IPO Readiness: The combination of strong revenue growth, improving operating performance, fresh institutional backing and a wider centre network has positioned Cult.fit for its next phase of growth as it moves toward a public listing.
Cultfit vs Healthify
Healthify, which used to go by HealthifyMe, is probably the comparison that comes up most often alongside Cult.fit, even though the two businesses are built quite differently. Cult.fit leans on physical centers and group workouts; Healthify runs an app-first model built around AI and human coaching, focused mainly on nutrition and calorie tracking. What they do share is geography and backing; both are Bengaluru-founded, venture-funded health-tech companies chasing the same underlying goal of getting Indians healthier while actually making money doing it.
Particulars | Cult.fit | Healthify (formerly HealthifyMe) |
Founded | 2016 | 2012 |
Core Model | Physical fitness centers plus app-based classes | AI and human-coach nutrition and fitness app |
Total Funding Raised | Over $700 million | Around $150 million |
FY24 Revenue | Rs. 926.6 crore | Rs 170 crore |
FY24/FY25 Profitability | Net loss (FY24: Rs 888.5 crore) | Turned profitable in FY24 (Rs 15 crore net profit) |
Listing Status | Unlisted, DRHP filed with SEBI (2026) | Unlisted, no confirmed IPO plans yet |
The gap between them is pretty striking once you line the numbers up. Cult.fit has raised and spent far more to build out a large physical footprint, and it's only now nearing operational breakeven. Healthify took the leaner, tech-first route and got to profitability earlier, despite raising a fraction of what Cult.fit has. Neither path is obviously the right one; they're just different ways of betting on the same broad opportunity in Indian health and wellness.
Is Cultfit Unlisted Share Worth Buying?
Several factors are relevant when evaluating Cult.fit's current position:
Strong institutional backing: Temasek, Accel, Tata Digital, and other established investors have backed the company across sixteen funding rounds, reflecting sustained confidence from professional investors.
Consistent revenue growth: Revenue has increased every year, from approximately Rs 694 crore in FY23 to Rs 1,720 crore in FY26, representing a strong growth trajectory for a consumer business in this category.
A clearer path to profitability: Following several years of significant losses, achieving EBITDA-positive results in FY26 represents a meaningful shift and is a key factor supporting the company's decision to pursue an IPO.
A near-term listing opportunity: With the DRHP already filed, unlisted shareholders now have a clearer and more immediate path to an exit than in previous years.
Risks that warrant consideration: The company has a substantial history of net losses, and EBITDA-positive results do not equate to net profitability. It also operates in a competitive, low-margin consumer segment where member retention and real estate costs can materially affect results. Unlisted shares also carry standard liquidity and lock-in considerations, and pricing can vary meaningfully across platforms, as outlined above.
