Wolt Leads Serbia at 68%. Our Estimates Show Where Glovo Is Gaining

Serbia’s combined Wolt and Glovo order volume grew by just 1% between January and August 2026, according to Getplace’s independent estimates. But the two platforms moved in different directions: Glovo’s estimated monthly orders rose by 8%, while Wolt’s fell by 2%.

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

Wolt remained the larger platform, with around 68% of the estimated August total of 2.2 million orders. Glovo’s estimated share reached 32%, up approximately two percentage points since January. Its gains were also visible within continuing venues and major brands shared by both platforms.

For platform teams, this is a useful reminder: a nearly flat country total can contain meaningful competitive movement.

The 68–32 split tells us who leads, not where momentum sits

Our August 2026 estimate puts Wolt at around 1.49 million monthly orders in Serbia and Glovo at around 706,000. Rounded, that is a 68–32 split of their combined estimated orders.

Wolt’s lead is substantial. It would be misleading to describe Serbia as a close contest based on this snapshot.

At the same time, Glovo’s estimated growth between January and August contrasts with Wolt’s decline. Its approximately two-percentage-point gain in estimated order share shows how the balance shifted within a nearly flat total. That is a change in share, distinct from the 8% increase in Glovo’s estimated order volume.

This is why we separate size from change. Size helps a commercial team understand the current position. Change helps it identify where that position may be shifting. Neither measure replaces the other.

Existing venues show the clearest difference

A platform can add orders by bringing more venues onto the app, by generating more orders at existing venues, or through a combination of both.

To distinguish those effects, we looked at venues present in both January and August. This is the like-for-like comparison: the same venue group within each platform across the two periods.

For that group, Getplace estimates Glovo’s orders grew by 7.6%, while Wolt’s fell by 6.9%.

That makes the finding more useful than a comparison of total orders alone. Glovo’s estimated improvement was not confined to the addition of new venues. Growth was also visible among venues already present in the earlier snapshot.

The comparison does not prove that individual customers moved from Wolt to Glovo. Nor does it isolate the effect of promotions, delivery fees or service quality. It shows a difference in estimated performance within each platform’s continuing venue group.

We used a similar distinction between existing locations and network changes in our Deliveroo UK order-growth analysis. The markets are different, but the question is the same: how much of the movement comes from the network changing, and how much comes from the businesses already on it?

Shared brands point in the same direction

The change is also visible among major brands available on both Wolt and Glovo.

Across the top 10 shared brands in our Serbia analysis, Wolt’s estimated share of their combined orders fell from 64% in January to 59% in August. That is a five-percentage-point reduction within this group, not a five-point fall in Wolt’s countrywide share.

For KFC, Wolt’s estimated share moved from 66% to 57%. For Saint Pizza, it moved from 70% to 59%.

These comparisons make the national picture more specific. Instead of asking only whether Glovo is growing, an account team can examine where the balance is changing for businesses available on both apps.

A shared brand is not necessarily an identical set of locations on each platform. Differences in location coverage can still matter, and the figures do not identify the cause of the movement. Even with that limitation, the direction is consistent with the like-for-like finding.

That gives teams a clearer starting point for investigating account performance. It is a reason to look more closely, not a conclusion about which commercial tactic worked.

Wolt still has the larger active venue network

The changes should not obscure Wolt’s existing scale. Our August dataset contains around 4,800 active Wolt venues and around 2,800 active Glovo venues.

Wolt also has the higher estimated monthly orders per active venue: 310, compared with 253 for Glovo.

These averages describe the platforms’ respective portfolios. They do not show what the same restaurant would achieve on each app, and they should not be used as a forecast for a new merchant.

Still, they help explain why Glovo’s recent gains and Wolt’s overall lead can both be true. Wolt has a broader active network and a higher estimated average across it. Glovo has stronger estimated movement over the comparison period.

Our Wolt and Glovo research in Poland examines venue additions. The Serbia findings underline why that supply view needs to sit alongside order performance rather than stand in for it.

Belgrade dominates demand, but brands are less concentrated

Belgrade accounts for around 65% of estimated Wolt and Glovo orders in Serbia. The top three cities together account for 84%.

For a platform country team, the geography is therefore highly concentrated. A national average can be strongly influenced by what happens in a small number of cities.

The brand picture is more spread out. Our dataset contains around 4,200 brands, with the top 10 accounting for 24% of estimated orders. McDonald’s, the largest brand in the analysis, accounts for 5.4%.

This creates two different priorities. Major-city performance deserves close attention because of its contribution to the total. But a brand strategy limited to a handful of national chains would leave much of the estimated demand outside its view.

That is where merchant coverage analysis becomes useful: identify the relevant local businesses within the cities that matter, rather than treating national brand counts as a complete acquisition plan.

A stable market is not a stable competitive position

Our reading of Serbia is straightforward. Wolt remains well ahead, but Glovo’s gains are visible beyond network expansion. They appear in continuing venues and in the order split of major shared brands.

That makes the next step more focused. Country teams can examine the accounts and locations behind those changes, then compare the relevant commercial conditions. The estimates do not tell us whether fees, promotions or visibility caused the movement, but they tell us where those questions are worth asking.

For a market growing by only around 1% in our comparison, that is a more useful discussion than the national growth figure on its own.

Getplace’s delivery-market intelligence connects platform-level estimates with those local and account-level questions.

About the data

This article draws on Getplace’s independent Serbia research comparing January and August 2026. The estimated order total combines Wolt and Glovo and includes restaurant and retail activity. Shares do not represent all delivery providers or direct orders outside these platforms.

The research uses proprietary data, observed market signals and statistical modelling. Like-for-like figures compare venues present in both periods within each platform; they are not necessarily the same venue set across platforms. Shared-brand shares use a separate, narrower denominator from national platform shares.

Figures are rounded estimates. The January-to-August comparison is not year-on-year growth, and two snapshots do not establish a continuous trend or causation.

Source: Getplace Serbia 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, KFC, Saint Pizza, 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.