Top Companies in India by Revenue, Market cap and More [2019 Edition]
When we look at the Indian economy, we can determine it as the third-largest economy by purchasing power parity in the world. This country also has very fast-growing service sectors and pays close attention to the IT industry – it is the biggest private-sector entity there. Another interesting fact here is, that India joins a huge number of startups (there was more than 100% growth of them over the 2017 and 2018 years) with Acko, BigBasket, and Bizongo on the top. Besides those thousands of small businesses, there are also many big companies providing their services in India. Which are the largest ones?
1. Introduction
What do we know about the top Indian companies? We can recognize some names like Air India, Indian Oil Corporation or, Tata Motors. Surely, they let people find a workplace and keep the Indian economy running, but if these businesses are the leading companies in India? We have checked it for you, and this, what you are reading now, is a result of our research. Due to the high-quality databases from Datantify website, you can see the lists of the top companies in India. So, with no more wasting time, we want to introduce you to these entities and hope you will enjoy reading it!
2. Quick summary
Before we point promised top companies in India, there is a short explanation of the lists we decided to make. In this article, you will find five profiles. Each of them points out different factors of every business – starting with the revenue, market capitalization, to the number of stores and employees. And the last paragraph is dedicated to companies as the best workplaces on the grounds of employees’ votes. All the necessary information about the best companies in India is right in front of you:
3. Top companies in India by the revenue
The revenue is an essential element of every business as we know. This kind of information lets the company realizes how much it receives from selling its goods and providing services. Moreover, its indispensability is also related to the financial statement analysis as the inflows appearing there. When we know how to define it, let’s look at the list below and see which company gets the first place:
# | Name | Revenue | Type | Founded | Headquarter | Links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() | $311.87B | public | 1907 | Den Haag, NL | |
2 | ![]() | $265.6B | public | 1976 | Cupertino, US | |
3 | ![]() | $232.89B | public | 1994 | Seattle, US | |
4 | ![]() | $174.05B | public | 1938 | Seoul, KR | |
5 | ![]() | $170.76B | public | 1876 | Dallas, US | |
6 | ![]() | $149.1B | public | 1924 | Courbevoie, FR | |
7 | ![]() | $148.9B | public | 1985 | Paris, FR | |
8 | ![]() | $121.61B | public | 1892 | Boston, US | |
9 | ![]() | $110.58B | public | 1904 | Charlotte, US | |
10 | ![]() | $110.36B | public | 1975 | Redmond, US | |
11 | ![]() | $101.13B | public | 1916 | Chicago, US | |
12 | ![]() | $88.26B | public | 1866 | Vevey, CH | |
13 | ![]() | $86.34B | public | 1910 | Tokyo, JP | |
14 | ![]() | $83.91B | public | 1995 | Bonn, DE | |
15 | ![]() | $81.87B | private | 1886 | Gerlingen, DE | |
16 | ![]() | $81.58B | public | 1886 | New Brunswick, US | |
17 | ![]() | $79.59B | public | 1911 | Armonk, US | |
18 | ![]() | $75.36B | public | 1962 | Minneapolis, US | |
19 | ![]() | $74.99B | subsidiary | 1998 | Mountain View, US | |
20 | ![]() | $74.14B | public | 1964 | Mumbai, IN | |
21 | ![]() | $72.69B | public | 1918 | Kadoma, JP | |
22 | ![]() | $71.33B | public | 1970 | Leiden, NL | |
23 | ![]() | $70.85B | public | 1968 | Santa Clara, US | |
24 | ![]() | $68.91B | public | 1950 | Chiyoda-ku, JP | |
25 | ![]() | $64.19B | subsidiary | 1969 | Bonn, DE | |
26 | ![]() | $60.28B | public | 1897 | Midland, US | |
27 | ![]() | $59.74B | public | 1966 | Mumbai, IN | |
28 | ![]() | $59.43B | public | 1923 | Burbank, US | |
29 | ![]() | $59.11B | public | 1948 | Nagoya, JP | |
30 | ![]() | $58.47B | public | 1939 | Palo Alto, US | |
31 | ![]() | $55.84B | public | 2004 | Menlo Park, US | |
32 | ![]() | $54.72B | public | 1925 | Peoria, US | |
33 | ![]() | $53.65B | public | 1849 | New York, US | |
34 | ![]() | $52.82B | public | 1956 | New Delhi, IN | |
35 | ![]() | $51.89B | public | 1958 | Seoul, KR | |
36 | ![]() | $49.11B | public | 1996 | Basel, CH | |
37 | ![]() | $46.4B | public | 1999 | Essen, DE | |
38 | ![]() | $45.35B | public | 1984 | Hong Kong, HK | |
39 | ![]() | $43.96B | public | 1919 | Tokyo, JP | |
40 | ![]() | $43.03B | subsidiary | 1979 | Irvine, US | |
41 | ![]() | $42.33B | public | 1868 | Mumbai, IN | |
42 | ![]() | $42.29B | public | 1891 | Kenilworth, US | |
43 | ![]() | $41.8B | public | 1906 | Morris Plains, US | |
44 | ![]() | $41.6B | public | 1989 | Dublin 4, IE | |
45 | ![]() | $41.49B | public | 2004 | Paris, FR | |
46 | ![]() | $40.9B | public | 1921 | Tokyo, JP | |
47 | ![]() | $39.83B | public | 1977 | Redwood City, US | |
48 | ![]() | $36.68B | public | 1999 | Hangzhou, CN | |
49 | ![]() | $35.99B | public | 1935 | Minato, JP | |
50 | ![]() | $35.95B | public | 1875 | Minato-ku, JP | |
51 | ![]() | $32.77B | public | 1902 | Maplewood, US | |
52 | ![]() | $31.86B | public | 1886 | Atlanta, US | |
53 | ![]() | $30.85B | public | 1939 | Palo Alto, US | |
54 | ![]() | $30.39B | public | 1978 | Boise, US | |
55 | ![]() | $29.95B | public | 1949 | Minneapolis, US | |
56 | ![]() | $29.68B | public | 1935 | Englewood, US | |
57 | ![]() | $29.19B | public | 1999 | Cambridge, GB | |
58 | ![]() | $29.14B | public | 1909 | Clichy, FR | |
59 | ![]() | $27.02B | public | 1984 | Doral, US | |
60 | ![]() | $26.49B | public | 1996 | Zürich, CH | |
61 | ![]() | $26.27B | public | 1972 | Newtown Square, US | |
62 | ![]() | $26.23B | public | 2015 | Chicago, US | |
63 | ![]() | $25.9B | public | 1899 | Tokyo, JP | |
64 | ![]() | $25.44B | public | 1969 | Singapore, SG | |
65 | ![]() | $24.72B | public | 1971 | Seattle, US | |
66 | ![]() | $24.7B | subsidiary | 1979 | Hopkinton, US | |
67 | ![]() | $24.59B | public | 1802 | Wilmington, US | |
68 | ![]() | $23.77B | public | 1919 | Columbus, US | |
69 | ![]() | $23.54B | public | 2005 | Pantin, FR | |
70 | ![]() | $23.31B | public | 1898 | Memphis, US | |
71 | ![]() | $23.17B | public | 1997 | Nanterre, FR | |
72 | ![]() | $22.73B | public | 1985 | San Diego, US | |
73 | ![]() | $21.81B | public | 1988 | Irving, US | |
74 | ![]() | $21.75B | public | 1865 | Toronto, CA | |
75 | ![]() | $21.19B | public | 1884 | London, GB | |
76 | ![]() | $20.86B | public | 1876 | Stockholm, SE | |
77 | ![]() | $20.61B | public | 1958 | Foster City, US | |
78 | ![]() | $20.29B | public | 1891 | Amsterdam, NL | |
79 | ![]() | $20.16B | public | 1990 | Los Angeles, US | |
80 | ![]() | $20.08B | public | 1926 | Tokyo, JP | |
81 | ![]() | $19.28B | public | 1967 | Tokyo, JP | |
82 | ![]() | $19.0B | public | 1907 | Mumbai, IN | |
83 | ![]() | $18.35B | public | 1817 | London, GB | |
84 | ![]() | $17.75B | public | 1893 | Paris, FR | |
85 | ![]() | $17.64B | public | 2005 | San Jose, US | |
86 | ![]() | $17.59B | public | 1968 | Mumbai, IN | |
87 | ![]() | $17.44B | public | 2016 | Plymouth, US | |
88 | ![]() | $16.37B | public | 1823 | Slough, GB | |
89 | ![]() | $16.24B | public | 1942 | Montréal, CA | |
90 | ![]() | $16.12B | public | 1994 | Paris, FR | |
91 | ![]() | $15.79B | public | 1997 | Los Gatos, US | |
92 | ![]() | $15.78B | public | 1930 | Dallas, US | |
93 | ![]() | $15.7B | public | 1946 | Herzogenaurach, DE | |
94 | ![]() | $15.47B | public | 1898 | Akron, US | |
95 | ![]() | $14.98B | public | 1947 | Dallas, US | |
96 | ![]() | $14.64B | subsidiary | 2000 | St. Louis, US | |
97 | ![]() | $14.3B | public | 1918 | Cleveland, US | |
98 | ![]() | $14.01B | public | 1888 | New York, US | |
99 | ![]() | $13.6B | public | 1941 | Portage, US | |
100 | ![]() | $13.28B | public | 1999 | San Francisco, US |
Have you guessed that the Shell company is the winner here? The company was founded in 1907, and its revenue is more than $311B. The second place is for one of the biggest technology companies in the world. Apple is known for its computer software, digital distribution, and consumer electronics services, which let it get over $265B in revenue. On the platform, we can also see a business with more than $232B in revenue. This entity is the Amazon company, which beginning was strictly related to online selling books. Presently, that top company in India deals with other industries such as cloud computing or artificial intelligence.
See also: Top Companies in France by Revenue, Market Cap and More
4. The best companies in India by market capitalization
Another thing that is worth to be taken into consideration during scanning the condition of an enterprise is its market capitalization. We can understand it as a result of multiplying the market price per share by the shares outstanding of a company. This information might be useful in the evaluation of the general value of a specific business, which is a key issue for every investor. So, let’s look at the best companies in India by their market capitalization:
# | Name | Market cap. | Type | Founded | Headquarter | Links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() | $967.12B | public | 1975 | Redmond, US | |
2 | ![]() | $960.32B | public | 1994 | Seattle, US | |
3 | ![]() | $959.23B | public | 1976 | Cupertino, US | |
4 | ![]() | $553.43B | public | 2004 | Menlo Park, US | |
5 | ![]() | $493.53B | public | 1999 | Hangzhou, CN | |
6 | ![]() | $378.14B | public | 1886 | New Brunswick, US | |
7 | ![]() | $354.12B | public | 1958 | Foster City, US | |
8 | ![]() | $327.94B | public | 1870 | Irving, US | |
9 | ![]() | $289.71B | public | 1904 | Charlotte, US | |
10 | ![]() | $253.26B | public | 1966 | Harrison, US | |
11 | ![]() | $241.47B | public | 1923 | Burbank, US | |
12 | ![]() | $235.69B | public | 1983 | New York, US | |
13 | ![]() | $229.79B | public | 1849 | New York, US | |
14 | ![]() | $229.31B | public | 1968 | Santa Clara, US | |
15 | ![]() | $224.02B | public | 1876 | Dallas, US | |
16 | ![]() | $211.81B | public | 1916 | Chicago, US | |
17 | ![]() | $206.78B | public | 1886 | Atlanta, US | |
18 | ![]() | $205.3B | public | 1891 | Kenilworth, US | |
19 | ![]() | $203.46B | public | 1999 | London, GB | |
20 | ![]() | $187.25B | public | 1977 | Redwood City, US | |
21 | ![]() | $178.41B | public | 1965 | Harrison, US | |
22 | ![]() | $172.37B | public | 2008 | Leuven, BE | |
23 | ![]() | $165.56B | public | 1997 | Los Gatos, US | |
24 | ![]() | $162.82B | public | 1812 | New York, US | |
25 | ![]() | $152.07B | public | 1972 | Newtown Square, US | |
26 | ![]() | $146.13B | public | 1909 | London, GB | |
27 | ![]() | $144.09B | public | 1924 | Courbevoie, FR | |
28 | ![]() | $136.45B | public | 1982 | San Jose, US | |
29 | ![]() | $128.89B | public | 1998 | San Jose, US | |
30 | ![]() | $125.9B | public | 1999 | San Francisco, US | |
31 | ![]() | $125.62B | public | 1906 | Morris Plains, US | |
32 | ![]() | $124.97B | public | 2005 | San Jose, US | |
33 | ![]() | $124.47B | public | 1911 | Armonk, US | |
34 | ![]() | $119.55B | public | 1949 | Minneapolis, US | |
35 | ![]() | $113.31B | public | 1923 | Bagsvaerd, DK | |
36 | ![]() | $112.42B | public | 1989 | Dublin 4, IE | |
37 | ![]() | $111.36B | public | 1993 | Santa Clara, US | |
38 | ![]() | $108.7B | public | 1930 | Dallas, US | |
39 | ![]() | $108.07B | public | 1985 | San Diego, US | |
40 | ![]() | $107.58B | public | 1994 | Mumbai, IN | |
41 | ![]() | $105.51B | public | 1902 | Maplewood, US | |
42 | ![]() | $100.77B | public | 1999 | Cambridge, GB | |
43 | ![]() | $97.47B | public | 1873 | London, GB | |
44 | ![]() | $95.78B | public | 1984 | Washington, US | |
45 | ![]() | $94.55B | public | 1971 | Seattle, US | |
46 | ![]() | $91.57B | public | 1892 | Boston, US | |
47 | ![]() | $83.43B | public | 1998 | Palo Alto, US | |
48 | ![]() | $81.05B | public | 1935 | New York, US | |
49 | ![]() | $78.21B | public | 1925 | Peoria, US | |
50 | ![]() | $76.11B | public | 1869 | New York, US | |
51 | ![]() | $75.01B | public | 1988 | New York, US | |
52 | ![]() | $72.89B | public | 1802 | Wilmington, US | |
53 | ![]() | $71.29B | public | 1941 | Portage, US | |
54 | ![]() | $66.84B | public | 1832 | Toronto, CA | |
55 | ![]() | $65.87B | public | 1929 | London, GB | |
56 | ![]() | $64.37B | public | 1983 | Mountain View, US | |
57 | ![]() | $60.07B | public | 1792 | Bloomfield, US | |
58 | ![]() | $58.64B | public | 1995 | Sunnyvale, US | |
59 | ![]() | $54.35B | public | 1908 | Detroit, US | |
60 | ![]() | $53.15B | public | 1923 | Naperville, US | |
61 | ![]() | $51.3B | public | 1979 | Marlborough, US | |
62 | ![]() | $49.81B | public | 2004 | Santa Clara, US | |
63 | ![]() | $47.31B | public | 1907 | Danbury, US | |
64 | ![]() | $46.62B | public | 1978 | Boise, US | |
65 | ![]() | $46.14B | public | 1940 | Allentown, US | |
66 | ![]() | $45.22B | public | 1981 | Bengaluru, IN | |
67 | ![]() | $45.13B | public | 1868 | New York, US | |
68 | ![]() | $43.24B | public | 1988 | Zürich, CH | |
69 | ![]() | $43.22B | public | 1919 | London, GB | |
70 | ![]() | $40.09B | public | 1897 | Midland, US | |
71 | ![]() | $39.24B | public | 2015 | Chicago, US | |
72 | ![]() | $39.21B | public | 1962 | Minneapolis, US | |
73 | ![]() | $38.45B | public | 1891 | Amsterdam, NL | |
74 | ![]() | $38.37B | public | 1971 | London, GB | |
75 | ![]() | $38.11B | public | 1968 | Jacksonville, US | |
76 | ![]() | $38.06B | public | 1982 | San Rafael, US | |
77 | ![]() | $36.59B | public | 1690 | London, GB | |
78 | ![]() | $36.55B | public | 1909 | New York, US | |
79 | ![]() | $33.73B | public | 1994 | Paris, FR | |
80 | ![]() | $32.76B | public | 1995 | San Jose, US | |
81 | ![]() | $32.23B | public | 2005 | Houston, US | |
82 | ![]() | $31.69B | public | 1876 | Stockholm, SE | |
83 | ![]() | $31.11B | public | 1939 | Palo Alto, US | |
84 | ![]() | $30.82B | public | 2006 | Eindhoven, NL | |
85 | ![]() | $30.79B | public | 2008 | Toronto, CA | |
86 | ![]() | $30.1B | public | 1984 | San Jose, US | |
87 | ![]() | $29.88B | public | 1932 | Wallingford, US | |
88 | ![]() | $29.87B | public | 1846 | London, GB | |
89 | ![]() | $29.0B | public | 1865 | Espoo, FI | |
90 | ![]() | $27.38B | public | 2016 | Durham, US | |
91 | ![]() | $26.65B | public | 1919 | Columbus, US | |
92 | ![]() | $26.62B | public | 2002 | Sydney, AU | |
93 | ![]() | $25.12B | public | 1851 | Corning, US | |
94 | ![]() | $25.08B | public | 1792 | Boston, US | |
95 | ![]() | $24.83B | public | 1999 | Santa Clara, US | |
96 | ![]() | $24.24B | public | 1919 | Houston, US | |
97 | ![]() | $23.87B | public | 1989 | Chandler, US | |
98 | ![]() | $23.62B | public | 1928 | Chicago, US | |
99 | ![]() | $23.52B | public | 2005 | Santa Clara, US | |
100 | ![]() | $23.44B | public | 1971 | Jersey City, US |
The list above provides different names of companies which are popular all over the world. In the profile, you can see the largest financial services corporations like Mastercard or Paypal or the giants in beverage concentrates and syrups industries such as Pepsico and The Coca Cola Company.
5. The list of top companies in India by number of stores
Admittedly, the number of stores might present us, in a sense, consumer needs. If there is a demand for some kinds of services, it is the normal course of events, that there are more and more stores opening. This is why we pay our attention to the biggest companies in India by a number of stores. The result you can see below:
# | Name | Stores | Type | Founded | Headquarter | Links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() | 111 | public | 1968 | Mumbai, IN | |
2 | ![]() | 73 | private | 2014 | Gurugram, IN | |
3 | ![]() | 64 | public | 1999 | Noida, IN | |
4 | ![]() | 42 | public | 1967 | Paris, FR | |
5 | ![]() | 42 | public | 1945 | Bengaluru, IN | |
6 | ![]() | 39 | public | 1988 | Zürich, CH | |
7 | ![]() | 25 | private | 1987 | Amstelveen, NL | |
8 | ![]() | 20 | public | 1956 | New Delhi, IN | |
9 | ![]() | 19 | private | 2002 | Bengaluru, IN | |
10 | ![]() | 18 | private | 2011 | Bengaluru, IN | |
11 | ![]() | 17 | public | 1868 | Mumbai, IN | |
12 | ![]() | 15 | public | 1994 | Mumbai, IN | |
13 | ![]() | 15 | public | 1939 | Palo Alto, US | |
14 | ![]() | 15 | public | 1997 | Mumbai, IN | |
15 | ![]() | 15 | private | 2012 | Hyderabad, IN | |
16 | ![]() | 14 | public | 1986 | Pune, IN | |
17 | ![]() | 14 | public | 1966 | Mumbai, IN | |
18 | ![]() | 14 | public | 1998 | Bengaluru, IN | |
19 | ![]() | 14 | private | 2013 | Mumbai, IN | |
20 | ![]() | 14 | private | 2014 | Gurgaon, IN | |
21 | ![]() | 13 | private | 1998 | London, GB | |
22 | ![]() | 13 | public | 1997 | New York, US | |
23 | ![]() | 13 | private | 1983 | Johannesburg, ZA | |
24 | ![]() | 13 | public | 1906 | Freienbach, CH | |
25 | ![]() | 12 | public | 1968 | Santa Clara, US | |
26 | ![]() | 12 | public | 1884 | Atlanta, US | |
27 | ![]() | 12 | public | 1919 | London, GB | |
28 | ![]() | 12 | public | 1996 | Mumbai, IN | |
29 | ![]() | 12 | subsidiary | 2007 | Bangalore, IN | |
30 | ![]() | 12 | subsidiary | 2011 | New Delhi, IN | |
31 | ![]() | 11 | public | 1997 | Bezons, FR | |
32 | ![]() | 11 | public | 1990 | Navi Mumbai, IN | |
33 | ![]() | 11 | private | 2007 | Gurugram, IN | |
34 | ![]() | 10 | public | 1994 | Paris, FR | |
35 | ![]() | 10 | public | 1941 | Surrey, GB | |
36 | ![]() | 10 | public | 1976 | Montréal, CA | |
37 | ![]() | 10 | subsidiary | 1991 | Santa Clara, US | |
38 | ![]() | 10 | public | 1979 | Stamford, US | |
39 | ![]() | 10 | public | 1991 | Hyderabad, IN | |
40 | ![]() | 10 | private | 2014 | Haryana, IN | |
41 | ![]() | 9 | private | 1926 | New York, US | |
42 | ![]() | 9 | public | 2008 | Toronto, CA | |
43 | ![]() | 9 | private | 2011 | Mumbai, IN | |
44 | ![]() | 9 | private | 2011 | Gurgaon, IN | |
45 | ![]() | 9 | private | 2015 | New York, US | |
46 | ![]() | 8 | public | 1967 | Tokyo, JP | |
47 | ![]() | 8 | public | 1972 | Newtown Square, US | |
48 | ![]() | 8 | public | 1974 | Clearwater, US | |
49 | ![]() | 8 | private | 1976 | Mumbai, IN | |
50 | ![]() | 8 | public | 1976 | Johns Creek, US | |
51 | ![]() | 8 | private | 2001 | Noida, IN | |
52 | ![]() | 8 | private | 2014 | Bengaluru, IN | |
53 | ![]() | 8 | private | 2012 | Mumbai, IN | |
54 | ![]() | 8 | private | 2008 | Bengaluru, IN | |
55 | ![]() | 8 | private | 2000 | Noida, IN | |
56 | ![]() | 7 | public | 1904 | Charlotte, US | |
57 | ![]() | 7 | public | 1982 | San Jose, US | |
58 | ![]() | 7 | subsidiary | 1971 | Atlanta, US | |
59 | ![]() | 7 | public | 1964 | Mumbai, IN | |
60 | ![]() | 7 | subsidiary | 1993 | Raleigh, US | |
61 | ![]() | 7 | subsidiary | 2000 | San Jose, US | |
62 | ![]() | 7 | subsidiary | 1980 | Troy, US | |
63 | ![]() | 7 | public | 2000 | Mumbai, IN | |
64 | ![]() | 7 | public | 1991 | Pune, IN | |
65 | ![]() | 7 | public | 1985 | Milton, GB | |
66 | ![]() | 7 | private | 1930 | Waalwijk, NL | |
67 | ![]() | 7 | public | 2001 | Santa Clara, US | |
68 | ![]() | 7 | private | 2007 | Jaipur, IN | |
69 | ![]() | 7 | private | 2002 | New York, US | |
70 | ![]() | 7 | public | Bengaluru, IN | ||
71 | ![]() | 7 | private | 2012 | Mumbai, IN | |
72 | ![]() | 7 | private | 1994 | Bengaluru, IN | |
73 | ![]() | 7 | private | 2006 | Mumbai, IN | |
74 | ![]() | 7 | private | 1998 | Udaipur, IN | |
75 | ![]() | 7 | private | 2006 | Bengaluru, IN | |
76 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1876 | Dallas, US | |
77 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1989 | Dublin 4, IE | |
78 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1947 | Dallas, US | |
79 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1953 | Stockholm, SE | |
80 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1907 | Den Haag, NL | |
81 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1919 | Tokyo, JP | |
82 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1888 | Amsterdam, NL | |
83 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1951 | Boston, US | |
84 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1976 | West Berkshire, GB | |
85 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1954 | Westlake, US | |
86 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1828 | London, GB | |
87 | ![]() | 6 | subsidiary | 1990 | San Jose, US | |
88 | ![]() | 6 | subsidiary | 1999 | Tokyo, JP | |
89 | ![]() | 6 | public | 2002 | Bridgewater, US | |
90 | ![]() | 6 | private | 1989 | Bengaluru, IN | |
91 | ![]() | 6 | subsidiary | 1980 | Durham, US | |
92 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1979 | Kolkata, IN | |
93 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1892 | Bengaluru, IN | |
94 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1992 | New Delhi, IN | |
95 | ![]() | 6 | public | 1991 | Mumbai, IN | |
96 | ![]() | 6 | public | 2001 | New Delhi, IN | |
97 | ![]() | 6 | private | 1998 | Noida, IN | |
98 | ![]() | 6 | private | 2009 | Gurugram, IN | |
99 | ![]() | 6 | private | 2002 | Bangalore, IN | |
100 | ![]() | 6 | private | 2002 | Menlo Park, US |
The first place goes to one of the top Indian companies – Tata Consultancy Services. The business handles IT operations and provides consulting services. Furthermore, it got 10th place on the Fortune India 500 ranking. And besides India, there are Tata Consultancy Services offices in other Asian countries, through Europe, Australia, African, and the Americas.
6. India top companies by number of employees
As we said before, the business growth is connected with opening new stores, but there is not the only one-factor providing company development. We can look at the matter from a different perspective and describe the top companies in India by a number of employees. Are you curious about the names placed in this profile? If so, it is the highest time to check them out:
# | Name | Employees | Type | Founded | Headquarter | Links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() | 630600 | public | 1994 | Seattle, US | |
2 | ![]() | 600000 | public | 1941 | Surrey, GB | |
3 | ![]() | 488946 | public | 1901 | Søborg, DK | |
4 | ![]() | 459000 | public | 1989 | Dublin 4, IE | |
5 | ![]() | 417929 | public | 1968 | Mumbai, IN | |
6 | ![]() | 410000 | private | 1886 | Gerlingen, DE | |
7 | ![]() | 360000 | public | 1962 | Minneapolis, US | |
8 | ![]() | 350600 | public | 1911 | Armonk, US | |
9 | ![]() | 345000 | public | 1934 | Kungsholmen, SE | |
10 | ![]() | 323000 | public | 1866 | Vevey, CH | |
11 | ![]() | 320000 | public | 1960 | Ann Arbor, US | |
12 | ![]() | 308745 | public | 1938 | Seoul, KR | |
13 | ![]() | 305289 | public | 1910 | Tokyo, JP | |
14 | ![]() | 298757 | public | 1973 | Kolkata, IN | |
15 | ![]() | 291000 | public | 1971 | Seattle, US | |
16 | ![]() | 283000 | public | 1892 | Boston, US | |
17 | ![]() | 281600 | public | 1994 | Paris, FR | |
18 | ![]() | 273858 | public | 1918 | Kadoma, JP | |
19 | ![]() | 268000 | public | 1876 | Dallas, US | |
20 | ![]() | 264041 | public | 1806 | Mumbai, IN | |
21 | ![]() | 263900 | private | 1845 | New York, US | |
22 | ![]() | 263000 | public | 1965 | Harrison, US | |
23 | ![]() | 250930 | private | 1998 | London, GB | |
24 | ![]() | 215675 | public | 1995 | Bonn, DE | |
25 | ![]() | 211313 | public | 1967 | Paris, FR | |
26 | ![]() | 205000 | public | 1904 | Charlotte, US | |
27 | ![]() | 204107 | public | 1981 | Bengaluru, IN | |
28 | ![]() | 204000 | public | 1812 | New York, US | |
29 | ![]() | 201000 | public | 1923 | Burbank, US | |
30 | ![]() | 200000 | public | 1969 | Singapore, SG | |
31 | ![]() | 193279 | private | 1987 | Amstelveen, NL | |
32 | ![]() | 187729 | public | 1966 | Mumbai, IN | |
33 | ![]() | 181001 | public | 1665 | Courbevoie, FR | |
34 | ![]() | 180000 | private | 1987 | Shenzhen, CN | |
35 | ![]() | 173000 | public | 1908 | Detroit, US | |
36 | ![]() | 172603 | public | 2008 | Leuven, BE | |
37 | ![]() | 163827 | public | 1945 | Bengaluru, IN | |
38 | ![]() | 161659 | subsidiary | 1998 | Mountain View, US | |
39 | ![]() | 160566 | public | 1929 | London, GB | |
40 | ![]() | 153000 | public | 1916 | Chicago, US | |
41 | ![]() | 146600 | public | 1988 | Zürich, CH | |
42 | ![]() | 142340 | public | 1921 | Tokyo, JP | |
43 | ![]() | 141256 | public | 1875 | Minato-ku, JP | |
44 | ![]() | 140365 | public | 1935 | Minato, JP | |
45 | ![]() | 139400 | public | 1983 | New York, US | |
46 | ![]() | 137000 | public | 1977 | Redwood City, US | |
47 | ![]() | 135100 | public | 1886 | New Brunswick, US | |
48 | ![]() | 134413 | public | 1971 | London, GB | |
49 | ![]() | 133671 | public | 1970 | Leiden, NL | |
50 | ![]() | 132000 | public | 1976 | Cupertino, US | |
51 | ![]() | 131000 | public | 1975 | Redmond, US | |
52 | ![]() | 128584 | public | 1999 | Essen, DE | |
53 | ![]() | 122110 | public | 1997 | Bezons, FR | |
54 | ![]() | 121597 | public | 1996 | Basel, CH | |
55 | ![]() | 120081 | public | 1999 | Noida, IN | |
56 | ![]() | 118391 | public | 1986 | Pune, IN | |
57 | ![]() | 118006 | public | 1967 | Tokyo, JP | |
58 | ![]() | 115686 | public | 1997 | Nanterre, FR | |
59 | ![]() | 114000 | public | 1906 | Morris Plains, US | |
60 | ![]() | 112360 | public | 1994 | Mumbai, IN | |
61 | ![]() | 111588 | public | 1985 | Paris, FR | |
62 | ![]() | 111100 | public | 1889 | Clermont-Ferrand, FR | |
63 | ![]() | 109390 | public | 1899 | Tokyo, JP | |
64 | ![]() | 108800 | public | 1968 | Santa Clara, US | |
65 | ![]() | 105800 | public | 1846 | London, GB | |
66 | ![]() | 104226 | public | 2004 | Paris, FR | |
67 | ![]() | 104000 | public | 1925 | Peoria, US | |
68 | ![]() | 103000 | public | 1865 | Espoo, FI | |
69 | ![]() | 102883 | public | 1935 | Tokyo, JP | |
70 | ![]() | 101550 | public | 1999 | Hangzhou, CN | |
71 | ![]() | 100735 | public | 1876 | Stockholm, SE | |
72 | ![]() | 98508 | public | 1832 | Toronto, CA | |
73 | ![]() | 98000 | public | 1924 | Courbevoie, FR | |
74 | ![]() | 97878 | public | 1936 | Yokohama-shi, JP | |
75 | ![]() | 97368 | public | 1878 | Genève, CH | |
76 | ![]() | 96498 | public | 1972 | Newtown Square, US | |
77 | ![]() | 93516 | public | 1902 | Maplewood, US | |
78 | ![]() | 92836 | public | 1946 | Herzogenaurach, DE | |
79 | ![]() | 92639 | public | 2005 | Pantin, FR | |
80 | ![]() | 90200 | public | 1849 | New York, US | |
81 | ![]() | 89000 | public | 1886 | Hoffman Estates, US | |
82 | ![]() | 88253 | public | 1994 | Mumbai, IN | |
83 | ![]() | 87000 | public | 1990 | Los Angeles, US | |
84 | ![]() | 86000 | public | 1949 | Minneapolis, US | |
85 | ![]() | 85800 | public | 1999 | London, GB | |
86 | ![]() | 85000 | public | 2016 | Plymouth, US | |
87 | ![]() | 84813 | subsidiary | 1969 | Bonn, DE | |
88 | ![]() | 83500 | public | 1690 | London, GB | |
89 | ![]() | 82838 | public | 1853 | London, GB | |
90 | ![]() | 82606 | public | 1909 | Clichy, FR | |
91 | ![]() | 82000 | public | 1907 | Den Haag, NL | |
92 | ![]() | 81090 | public | 1868 | Mumbai, IN | |
93 | ![]() | 80000 | public | 1997 | New York, US | |
94 | ![]() | 77739 | public | 1934 | Tokyo, JP | |
95 | ![]() | 77400 | public | 1891 | Amsterdam, NL | |
96 | ![]() | 77164 | public | 1950 | Chiyoda-ku, JP | |
97 | ![]() | 75326 | public | 1944 | Nagaokakyo, JP | |
98 | ![]() | 74570 | public | 1984 | Qingdao, CN | |
99 | ![]() | 74400 | public | 1947 | Dallas, US | |
100 | ![]() | 74000 | public | 1976 | Montréal, CA |
With the number of 630600 employees, Amazon company opens the list of top companies in India by the number of employees. Next companies mentioned in this ranking are Compass Group, ISS, Accenture, and Tata Consultancy Services. You can also see multinational giants like engineering Bosh company, electronics Samsung group or strongly connoted with coffee Starbucks.
Learn more about our ranking using policy
7. What is the best company in India as an employer?
Employees are the most valuable assets of every company. When they are satisfied with their jobs, it would surely affect positively on the organization. They would be more motivated, and consequently, more productive. This also leads to strengthening employee loyalty, which let the company build a successful stable work team. Work conditions are the thing we want to focus on our last list and point the best places to work in India:
# | Name | Votes | Ratings | Culture & values | Work/life balance | Type | Headquarter | Links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() | 10161 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.4 | public | Newtown Square, US | |
2 | ![]() | 8609 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.1 | subsidiary | Mountain View, US | |
3 | ![]() | 21925 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.9 | public | Redmond, US | |
4 | ![]() | 8044 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.2 | public | Espoo, FI | |
5 | ![]() | 4294 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.7 | public | London, GB | |
6 | ![]() | 14628 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.4 | public | Cupertino, US | |
7 | ![]() | 4365 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.8 | public | Den Haag, NL | |
8 | ![]() | 2461 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.8 | public | Maplewood, US | |
9 | ![]() | 12644 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.8 | public | Santa Clara, US | |
10 | ![]() | 4934 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 3.9 | public | New Brunswick, US | |
11 | ![]() | 2048 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 4.0 | public | Palo Alto, US | |
12 | ![]() | 2774 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.3 | public | Chicago, US | |
13 | ![]() | 2944 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 4.0 | public | Columbus, US | |
14 | ![]() | 42120 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.4 | public | Dublin 4, IE | |
15 | ![]() | 3307 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.8 | public | New York, US | |
16 | ![]() | 21269 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 3.5 | public | Seattle, US | |
17 | ![]() | 513 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.7 | public | Clermont-Ferrand, FR | |
18 | ![]() | 27837 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.0 | private | New York, US | |
19 | ![]() | 1236 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 3.7 | public | Courbevoie, FR | |
20 | ![]() | 1444 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 3.9 | public | London, GB | |
21 | ![]() | 1851 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.3 | public | Mumbai, IN | |
22 | ![]() | 1921 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.7 | public | Cambridge, GB | |
23 | ![]() | 1690 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.7 | public | Midland, US | |
24 | ![]() | 10814 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 3.2 | public | Pune, IN | |
25 | ![]() | 7198 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.5 | public | New York, US | |
26 | ![]() | 1299 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 4.0 | public | Plan-les-Ouates, CH | |
27 | ![]() | 203 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.9 | subsidiary | San Bruno, US | |
28 | ![]() | 36524 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.7 | public | Mumbai, IN | |
29 | ![]() | 2947 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.3 | public | Vevey, CH | |
30 | ![]() | 3171 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 3.7 | public | Kenilworth, US | |
31 | ![]() | 2872 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.5 | public | Basel, CH | |
32 | ![]() | 3059 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.6 | public | London, GB | |
33 | ![]() | 138 | 3.6 | 3.3 | 3.5 | public | Chiyoda-ku, JP | |
34 | ![]() | 6885 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 | public | Morris Plains, US | |
35 | ![]() | 1785 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.6 | public | Paris, FR | |
36 | ![]() | 3271 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.4 | public | Minneapolis, US | |
37 | ![]() | 29 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.9 | public | Nagaokakyo, JP | |
38 | ![]() | 28271 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.4 | public | Paris, FR | |
39 | ![]() | 44000 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.7 | public | Armonk, US | |
40 | ![]() | 944 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.5 | public | Singapore, SG | |
41 | ![]() | 2840 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | public | Zürich, CH | |
42 | ![]() | 7557 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.0 | public | Harrison, US | |
43 | ![]() | 21154 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.5 | public | Charlotte, US | |
44 | ![]() | 463 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.7 | public | Bonn, DE | |
45 | ![]() | 792 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 | public | Pantin, FR | |
46 | ![]() | 4921 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.4 | public | Atlanta, US | |
47 | ![]() | 98 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 4.1 | public | London, GB | |
48 | ![]() | 182 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 3.0 | public | Kyoto, JP | |
49 | ![]() | 4258 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.7 | public | Amsterdam, NL | |
50 | ![]() | 2679 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | public | Dallas, US | |
51 | ![]() | 791 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 3.4 | public | Montreal, CA | |
52 | ![]() | 26 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 3.1 | public | Qingdao, CN | |
53 | ![]() | 8967 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.7 | public | Palo Alto, US | |
54 | ![]() | 8855 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 | public | Stockholm, SE | |
55 | ![]() | 4605 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.6 | public | New York, US | |
56 | ![]() | 4430 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.4 | public | New York, US | |
57 | ![]() | 14418 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.3 | public | New York, US | |
58 | ![]() | 7331 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 3.7 | public | Chicago, US | |
59 | ![]() | 3250 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 3.0 | public | Mumbai, IN | |
60 | ![]() | 3667 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.4 | public | Durham, US | |
61 | ![]() | 1007 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.5 | public | Kadoma, JP | |
62 | ![]() | 3760 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.0 | public | Ann Arbor, US | |
63 | ![]() | 395 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.2 | public | Stockholm, SE | |
64 | ![]() | 2918 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 2.9 | public | Houston, US | |
65 | ![]() | 846 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 2.8 | public | Memphis, US | |
66 | ![]() | 21890 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.8 | public | Redwood City, US | |
67 | ![]() | 70 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 3.0 | public | Hangzhou, CN | |
68 | ![]() | 6191 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.6 | public | Montréal, CA | |
69 | ![]() | 14470 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | public | Paris, FR | |
70 | ![]() | 1000 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.0 | public | Akron, US | |
71 | ![]() | 799 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.4 | public | Essen, DE | |
72 | ![]() | 1537 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.1 | public | Naperville, US | |
73 | ![]() | 12984 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.5 | public | Noida, IN | |
74 | ![]() | 3221 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.5 | public | New York, US | |
75 | ![]() | 3384 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 3.4 | private | Delft, NL | |
76 | ![]() | 32959 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 3.5 | public | Bengaluru, IN | |
77 | ![]() | 1287 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.0 | subsidiary | Bonn, DE | |
78 | ![]() | 1375 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 | public | Surrey, GB | |
79 | ![]() | 2698 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.4 | public | Jacksonville, US | |
80 | ![]() | 1220 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 3.0 | public | Cleveland, US | |
81 | ![]() | 19236 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 3.3 | public | Bengaluru, IN | |
82 | ![]() | 4499 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.4 | public | Bezons, FR | |
83 | ![]() | 1272 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 2.8 | public | Seoul, KR | |
84 | ![]() | 1625 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.6 | public | Paris, FR | |
85 | ![]() | 380 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.4 | public | Tokyo, JP | |
86 | ![]() | 754 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 2.9 | public | Tokyo, JP | |
87 | ![]() | 214 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.1 | public | Wallingford, US | |
88 | ![]() | 323 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 3.5 | public | Kolkata, IN | |
89 | ![]() | 519 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 3.0 | public | Søborg, DK | |
90 | ![]() | 204 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.1 | public | Plymouth, US | |
91 | ![]() | 1390 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.5 | public | Leuven, BE | |
92 | ![]() | 4443 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.3 | public | Los Angeles, US | |
93 | ![]() | 1744 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.3 | public | Montréal, CA | |
94 | ![]() | 2583 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.4 | public | Minato, JP | |
95 | ![]() | 519 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.8 | subsidiary | Redditch, GB | |
96 | ![]() | 888 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.2 | public | Genève, CH | |
97 | ![]() | 853 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 2.5 | public | Seoul, KR | |
98 | ![]() | 917 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 3.3 | public | Yokohama-shi, JP | |
99 | ![]() | 1350 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 2.6 | public | Kungsholmen, SE | |
100 | ![]() | 157 | 2.41 | 2.4 | 2.7 | public | Nagoya, JP |
In the light of employee ratings, the SAP company is the winner here. They have regard to the culture and value issues and consider the balance between work and private life. Secondly, you can see an Apple with a general rate of 4.4 points, and a computer software company Microsoft closes the platform.
8.Summary
The list of top companies in India is clear-out. It is down to the fact that we can look at the top best companies in India from different viewpoints. The presented paper provides these largest entities with their revenue, market cap, number of stores, and employees. We hope that such a comprehensive perspective lets you find all the necessary information and make it useful in time. And if you are interested in companies from other parts of the world – we have good news for you. You can easily find up-to-date information in the directories website Datantify. Enjoy the reading then!

with active e-mails, phone numbers
and more
[…] you could conduct a transaction. No doubt you have heard about more global marketplaces such as Rakuten, eBay, Alibaba, and AliExpress. Using of its services can lead to conquering international markets […]
[…] countries give us an array of possibilities to do. We are able not only to travel abroad but also start an international business. It is a good idea for people who want to expand into global markets, reach a new segment of […]
[…] Read also our previous article:Top 40 companies of ASX by market cap https://datantify.com/knowledge/top-40-companies-of-asx-by-market-cap/ […]
[…] Read also our previous article: TOP 50 Largest Financial Companies in the World in 2020https://datantify.com/knowledge/top-50-largest-financial-companies-in-the-world-in-2020/ […]