Highlights
 

• MRF stages recovery in margin in Q4, others suffer
   
• CEAT breaches US$1.51 billion for the first time in revenue in FY25
   
• High raw material costs eat into profits of majors

India’s top tire manufacturers closed FY 2024–25 (April 2024-March 2025) on a mixed note, as solid replacement demand and operational efficiency supported revenue growth, but profit margins buckled under sustained cost pressures. While topline performance remained broadly stable across the board, the divergence between revenue expansion and profit realization sharpened, revealing deeper fault lines in strategy, cost management, and market orientation.
 

Raw material costs, weaker exports, and a fragmented OEM recovery tested the industry on the macro landscape during the fiscal year, even as revenue performance broadly tracked domestic demand strength, especially in the replacement segment. CEAT was the year’s outlier in topline expansion, breaching INR13,000 crore (US$1.51 billion) for the first time – up 10.7% YoY - driven by double-digit growth across categories and a strong Q4 OEM performance. The Q4 FY 2025 revenue was over INR 3420 crore (US$398 million), up 14.3% YoY.
 

Majors Face Diverging Revenue Paths
 

Source: Helixtap Analytics & company reports

Apollo Tyres hit INR26,123 crore (US$3.08 billion) – up 3% YoY - in annual revenue and INR6,424 crore (US$741.17 million) in Q4 revenue, - up 2.65% YoY - maintaining its levels through marginal growth in both OEM and replacement channels.
 

MRF posted an impressive 12% YoY annual revenue expansion to INR 28,153 crore (US$3.28 billion) in FY 2025 and a marginal 1% YoY expansion to ₹7,074 crore (US$824 million) in Q4 FY 2025, reflecting its conservative approach and premium product focus. Though raw material costs softened during the quarter, it was partially offset by the rupee depreciating against the US dollar.
 

JK Tyre’s revenue reached INR 14,772 crore (US$1.72 billion) for the year, down 2% YoY, and INR 3,780 crore (US$440.7 million) in Q4, up 2% YoY, mainly due to a healthy uptick in both replacement and OEM segments. Yet a deeper look reveals that revenue did not cross last year’s levels and did not translate proportionally to profit across the board.
 

Margin Erosion Widens
 

That divergence is evident in the net profit trends of all. MRF delivered a good performance but below last year’s levels, with FY25 net profit falling to INR1869 crore (US$217 million), from INR2081 crore (US$242 million). The profit fall signals diminished margin recovery driven by cost challenges, including escalated raw material NR costs from June last year and pricing problems. The profit for Q4 FY2025 at INR 512 crore (US$59.5 million), however, is impressive year-on-year, up 29%, due mainly to softened domestic raw material prices and cheaper imports.
 

Apollo posted a 35% YoY dip in annual profit to INR1,121 crore (US$130.7 million), showing weak operational leverage amid marginal revenue growth. During Q4 FY2025, net profit sharply fell to INR 185 crore (US$21.5 million) from INR 354 crore (US$41.2 million) in the same period last fiscal.
 

JK Tyre, on the other hand, saw FY25 profit falling to INR 516 crore (US$60.16 million), down 36% YoY, while Q4 FY25 profit plunged 41% YoY to INR 102 crore (US$11.8 million). Higher expenses and adverse forex fluctuations mainly contributed to this.
 

CEAT reporting a Q4FY2025 net profit of INR98.7 crore (US$11.47 million), down 3.5% YoY, showed a full-year tone of being under stress with a decline of 25.8% YoY to INR 471.4 crore (US$54.8 million).  CEAT’s revenue gains were not matched by margin expansion, calling for greater pricing discipline, cost control, and operational leverage to sustain profitability in a high-cost environment.

Raw Material Shocks
 

Source: Helixtap Analytics & company reports

The spike in raw material NR prices from June last year made a dent in the profit margins of all tire majors. The Indian RSS-4 prices hit a record INR 247/kg (US$2.88) price on August 9, 2024. The prices kept above INR 200/kg (US$2.33) from June to September 2024 and above INR 190/kg in October and November 2024 and then from January to March 2025 and above INR 180/kg during the other months of the last fiscal. In the previous FY2024 fiscal, the NR prices hovered between INR 150-175/kg (US$1.75-2.04). The spike to INR 175/kg was only towards the end of that fiscal. With raw material prices remaining high, all the tire majors tried to limit the dent in profit by hiking tire prices to a certain extent during FY2025.
 

Channel Focus and Capital Play
 

Demand channel strategy—replacement vs OEM—played a critical role in shaping resilience to an extent. CEAT was best positioned here, citing consistent replacement demand and a notable Q4 OEM rebound. CEAT’s strong OEM showing in Q4 helped balance what had been a replacement-led year. Apollo could not manage a similar offset, and hence it was a disappointing year for the firm overall. JK Tyre’s growth was more narrowly concentrated in the domestic replacement market, which helped topline but exposed it to margin compression. MRF, while not explicit about channel splits, continued to extract from its long-standing dominance in the replacement segment, but not up to the expected levels. Companies could learn the lesson that a balanced exposure across demand channels can help them navigate cyclical shifts.
 

Capital strategy also diverged sharply. CEAT took a proactive investment approach, with INR946 crore (US$110 million) in capex for capacity expansion and manufacturing efficiency. This included an INR37 crore (US$4.3 million) voluntary separation initiative at a high-cost factory, demonstrating an aggressive stance on long-term competitiveness. JK Tyre continued to invest in technology and EV-aligned products but offered less visibility into scale or returns. It virtually rules the EV bus tire segment. Apollo tried to extract efficiencies from existing operations, particularly in India and Europe, while MRF stayed the course with its conservatism, deploying regulated capex and maximising margins. These postures revealed an inherent polarity: CEAT was priming for growth, MRF to retain its lead, Apollo for holding ground, and JK Tyre for the new-age EV segment.
 

External Market and the Road Ahead
 

Exports were a common weak point, though exposure varied. Apollo, with significant European operations, explicitly flagged pressure in international markets. CEAT and JK Tyre were more insulated by their domestic orientation. MRF’s comparatively limited export dependence lets it have limited exposure to global headwinds.  If external markets recover in FY26, Apollo is structurally better placed to capture gains, while CEAT and JK Tyre may continue to propel India's two- and three-wheelers more directly. For now, domestic resilience remains the pillar of industry performance.
 

FY25 was less about who grew the most and more about who managed to grow profitably and sustainably. With cost pressures seeming to stabilize, the year ahead will test companies’ ability to drive earnings through differentiation, capital efficiency, and channel balance. For MRF, FY25 did not validate its strategic poise while for Apollo the year meant identifying key challenges that contributed to its underperformance. For CEAT, it marked the beginning of a more assertive growth cycle. For JK Tyre, it was a year of a bit of struggling to hold ground and FY26 would demand even sharper execution.