Shark Tank India made its debut on December 20, 2021, presenting Indian audiences with the compelling concept of entrepreneurs presenting their business proposals to seasoned investors, known as "sharks," in search of funding and advice. The show gained rapid popularity thanks to its blend of innovative ideas, excitement, and practical business wisdom.
The judges, or sharks, demonstrated confidence as they mentored aspiring entrepreneurs, offering valuable guidance towards achieving profitability and long-term success through their probing questions and expert insights, reflecting their extensive experience and hard-earned knowledge.
The Sharks steer the pitchers towards profitability and sustainable growth through a series of incisive questions and insightful perspectives based on their extensive business expertise. But how about their own ventures?
Within the private operations of the sharks, a narrative emerges of successes and setbacks, victories and challenges. Some have navigated the market currents to achieve profitability, while others are grappling with financial difficulties. Let's delve into the financial indicators of these entrepreneurial figures to discern those excelling and those still seeking their footing.
Here's a look at the finances of the companies or brands owned by our favorite Sharks (as shared by one X user).
| Shark | Brand/Company Name | Revenue | Profit or Loss | Profit/Loss Figures | FY |
| Anupam Mittal | Shaadi.com | $292 million | Loss | Rs 13.5 crore | FY22 |
| Aman Gupta | boAt | Rs 3122 crore | Loss | Rs 79 crore | FY24 |
| Namita Thapar | Emcure Pharmaceuticals | Rs 6715 crore | Profit | Rs 527 crore | FY 24 |
| Vineeta Singh | Sugar Cosmetics | Rs 505 crore | Loss | Rs 67.5 crore | FY 24 |
| Amit Jain | Car Dekho | Rs 2250 crore | Loss | Rs 340 crore | FY 24 |
| Peyush Bansal | Lenskart | Rs 5427 crore | Loss | Rs 10 crore | FY 24 |
| Deepinder Goyal | Zomato | Rs 12114 crore | Profit | Rs 351 crore | FY 24 |
| Kunal Bahl | Snapdeal | Rs 384 crore | Loss | Rs 160 crore | FY 24 |
| Azhar Iqubal | Inshorts | Rs 181 crore | Loss | Rs 228 crore | FY 24 |
| Ghazal Alagh | Mamaearth | Rs 1920 crore | Profit | Rs 111 crore | FY 24 |
| Ritesh Agarwal | OYO | Rs 5389 crore | Profit | Rs 229 crore | FY 24 |
| Varun Dua | Acko | Rs 2106 crore | Loss | Rs 670 crore | FY 24 |
| Ronnie Screwvala | UpGrad | Rs 1876 crore | Loss | Rs 560 crore | FY 24 |
| Viraj Bahl | Veeba Foods | Rs 811 crore | Loss | Rs 50 lakh | FY 23 |
Source: New reports
The X user wrote: "Should loss making judges really be judges?"
He was not the only one to talk about the judges and entrepreneurial journey. X user The The Kaipullai wrote: "When I watch Shark Tank India, I get this realization that it is a show where. Someone running a business, entirely based on selling cheap white labelled made-in-China / PRC products, grills aspiring Entrepreneurs about innovation, R&D and patents. Someone running a business that is not even in the top 3 in its category, asks entrepreneurs about their market share and product market fit. Some people who run perenially loss making businesses, asks contestants about profitability, margin, contribution and unit economics. And then there is the case of people who run businesses that have been around forever, asks entrepreneurs on what is so special about their business?"
Another X user Balachandran S wrote: "Shark tank india is all about branding the judges to make them look much bigger than who they are. Could have been a much better initiative if it had an element of mentoring which small indian businesses desperately need. But then, the business leaders who have the capability to mentor would never take part in such tamasha!"
X user Nikhil said: "Shark Tank India has given relevance to the judges who had no other way of achieving it. Everyone knows boat sells chinese products. A company whose only USP is selling cheap goods. But the show have also provided a marketing platform for small businesses some of which have become bigger. In game theory that would be a win win if you take a helicopter view and ignore the glaring in-your-face hypocrisy of this whole charade."