Wolt at 77%: What Our Croatia Delivery Estimates Reveal

Wolt accounts for around 77% of estimated Wolt and Glovo orders in Croatia, according to Getplace’s August 2026 analysis. Glovo accounts for the remaining 23%. Together, the two platforms generated an estimated 1.38 million orders that month, around 6% below our January estimate.

Source: Getplace independent estimates, January–August 2026. Original infographic and research post.

That is a clear lead. But the more useful finding for platform teams is how concentrated those orders are. Zagreb accounts for more than half of estimated demand, and just 10 brands account for 35%. Wolt also has both a larger active venue network and a higher average number of orders per venue.

These are different measures of competitive strength. Looking at them together gives us a better view of Croatia than the national split alone.

Wolt’s lead sits within a smaller estimated order total

Between January and August 2026, our model estimates that Glovo’s monthly orders fell by 17%, compared with a 2% decline for Wolt. Most of the estimated reduction in the combined total therefore came from Glovo.

For a country team, that distinction matters. A platform can strengthen its relative position without growing its own order volume. In this comparison, Wolt’s lead should not be read as evidence that its orders were rising.

Nor is this a year-on-year comparison. January and August are two monthly snapshots within 2026. They show a change between those periods, not a full-year trend or the cause of that change.

The immediate commercial question is where the difference sits: across the venue network, within major brands, or in particular cities. Our published findings provide several ways to narrow that question.

More venues, but also more orders per venue

Wolt had around 2,700 active venues in our August Croatia dataset, compared with around 1,600 for Glovo. Estimated monthly orders per active venue were 393 on Wolt and 205 on Glovo.

So the gap was not simply a matter of one platform listing more places. Wolt’s average was also almost twice as high, although that comparison needs care.

These are portfolio averages, not a test of the same restaurant on each platform. The networks can differ in their brands, locations and mix of businesses. A restaurant should not read the figures as a promise that moving to Wolt would nearly double its orders.

Glovo’s estimated average fell from 227 orders per active venue in January to 205 in August. That suggests its country team needs to look beyond the number of active listings when assessing performance. The next question is whether the reduction is broad or concentrated in specific groups of venues.

Our Poland analysis of Wolt and Glovo venue additions looks at the supply side of platform competition. Croatia adds another dimension: the number of places available and the orders generated by those places are not interchangeable measures.

Zagreb still accounts for most estimated orders

Zagreb’s share of estimated Wolt and Glovo orders moved from 59% in January to 57% in August. Split’s share rose from 12% to 14%.

The shift towards Split is worth tracking, but Zagreb remained the larger commercial priority by a considerable margin. More than half of the estimated orders in the August snapshot were still concentrated in the capital.

Importantly, a larger share is not the same as an increase in absolute orders. The combined country total changed between the two months. These shares alone also do not establish why the mix moved, so we would not attribute the change to tourism or any other cause without further evidence.

For acquisition and account teams, the implication is practical. A national target can hide very different local opportunities. A venue added in a city with limited demand is not necessarily equivalent to one added in a high-volume area. That is why merchant coverage analysis needs a demand view alongside the list of missing venues.

Ten brands account for 35% of estimated demand

There are around 2,000 brands in our Croatia dataset. The top 10 account for 35% of estimated orders, and the top 50 account for 55%.

McDonald’s is the largest individual brand in our estimate, with around 178,000 monthly orders. That represents approximately 13% of the combined Wolt and Glovo total.

This concentration changes how a platform should interpret a country-level movement. A relatively small group of accounts represents a substantial part of demand. Changes within those accounts can matter far more than the number of brands alone would suggest.

The mix differs between platforms too. McDonald’s accounts for an estimated 16% of Glovo orders, compared with 12% of Wolt orders. The top 50 brands account for 62% of Glovo’s estimated orders and 55% of Wolt’s.

Those figures describe concentration, not the terms or quality of any commercial relationship. They do suggest that a platform review should give major accounts their own view, rather than treating every venue as an equal contribution to the national total.

The useful question is where the next orders can come from

Our reading is that Croatia needs a focused commercial approach. The national platform split is clear, but it is only the starting point. Demand is concentrated in a small number of cities and brands, while average orders per active venue differ substantially.

For Wolt, the data gives a basis for examining which parts of its lead are supported by network breadth and which by stronger demand within the existing portfolio. For Glovo, it points towards a closer review of major accounts and venue-level performance, alongside acquisition.

The figures do not tell us which fees, promotions, placements or service changes would improve those outcomes. They help identify where to investigate before committing resources.

That is the role of Getplace’s delivery-market intelligence: connect the country headline with the cities, brands and venues behind it, so commercial teams can ask a more specific question.

About the data

This article draws on Getplace’s independent estimates for Wolt and Glovo in Croatia, comparing January and August 2026. The August total includes restaurant and retail orders. Platform shares refer to the estimated combined orders of these two platforms, not all delivery activity, direct restaurant orders or every delivery provider in Croatia.

The research uses proprietary datasets, observed market signals and statistical modelling. Order volumes, shares and changes are estimates, not official platform figures. Active venue counts are rounded; portfolio averages are not matched-venue comparisons. The two monthly snapshots do not establish a seasonal pattern, a year-on-year trend or causation.

Source: Getplace Croatia findings and accompanying infographic, published by Denis Chernobaev.

Disclaimer: This analysis contains independent Getplace.io estimates for market-research and informational purposes. Figures may differ materially from actual results. They are not official or audited figures and have not been provided, verified or endorsed by Wolt, Glovo, McDonald’s or any other company referenced. Getplace.io is independent of and is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by any of those companies. The analysis does not purport to contain confidential or non-public information. Brand names and trademarks are used solely for identification and comparative research and remain the property of their respective owners. Nothing in this article constitutes investment, financial, legal or other professional advice.