<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Business Models on WebNotes</title><link>https://v2.webnotes.in/categories/business-models/</link><description>Recent content in Business Models on WebNotes</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-IN</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://v2.webnotes.in/categories/business-models/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Zerodha revenue model and profitability</title><link>https://v2.webnotes.in/zerodha-revenue-model/</link><pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://v2.webnotes.in/zerodha-revenue-model/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Zerodha&amp;rsquo;s revenue model&lt;/strong&gt; centres on a flat-fee brokerage structure supplemented by interest income, account maintenance charges, and ancillary platform revenues. &lt;a href="https://v2.webnotes.in/zerodha-broking-limited/"&gt;Zerodha Broking Limited&lt;/a&gt;, the primary operating entity, reported total income of approximately 8,320 crore rupees for the financial year 2023-24, with a net profit of approximately 4,700 crore rupees, representing a net margin of approximately 56 per cent. This profitability profile is exceptional within the financial services sector and reflects the scalability of the technology-led brokerage model.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Zerodha vs Robinhood (business model comparison)</title><link>https://v2.webnotes.in/zerodha-vs-robinhood/</link><pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://v2.webnotes.in/zerodha-vs-robinhood/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Zerodha and Robinhood&lt;/strong&gt; are frequently cited together as the defining examples of discount brokerage disruption in their respective markets: Zerodha in India (founded 2010) and Robinhood in the United States (founded 2013). Both firms challenged the incumbent percentage-commission brokerage model, both attracted tens of millions of retail clients through technology-first platforms, and both faced regulatory scrutiny as retail participation in complex derivatives markets surged on their platforms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The comparison reveals significant structural differences in pricing, revenue model, regulatory environment, and corporate governance, as well as instructive parallels in market impact and regulatory responses to the democratisation of trading.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>