Saatvik Green Energy Limited announces a new order win

The contract is a module-supply order, not an EPC contract. The filing identifies the counterparties as domestic IPPs/EPC players, but the stated contractual scope is specifically “Supply of Solar PV Modules”; it does not mention engineering, procurement-and-construction, installation, commissioning, or other EPC services by Saatvik. The order value is Rs 297.50 Crores and is to be executed by March 2027. ^[1]

The order-specific margin is not disclosed. The filing provides neither the contract price per watt, input-cost assumptions, contribution margin, EBITDA margin, nor any guidance on profitability for this order. Therefore, its margin cannot be compared quantitatively with the company’s historical module-only sales from the disclosed information.

For context only, Saatvik’s reported EBITDA margins were:

• Q1 FY27: 8.30% consolidated and 5.00% standalone. ^[2]
• TTM through Q1 FY27: 10.80% consolidated and 5.80% standalone. ^{[3] [4]}

These are company-level margins, not module-only historical averages, and should not be used as a direct proxy for the Rs 297.5 Crores order. The relevant analytical conclusion is therefore:

• Scope: module supply only; EPC services are not included in the disclosed scope.
• Margin comparison: indeterminate—neither the order margin nor a clean historical module-only margin series has been reported.
• What would resolve it: disclosure of contract-level gross margin or EBITDA contribution, product specification and pricing, delivery terms, and whether any installation or commissioning obligations sit with Saatvik.

I couldn't find relevant information for this query. Please try rephrasing or asking about a specific metric.

A defensible comparison cannot be completed from the disclosed figures because the order’s MW capacity and Saatvik’s module-volume data are both required.

Implied order realization

If the order capacity is X MW:

• Implied realization = Rs 297.5 Cr / X MW
• Equivalent module-level value = Rs 2,975 / X per watt

For example, a 100 MW order would imply Rs 2.98 Cr/MW, or Rs 29.75/W—but the order capacity must be verified before using any such figure.

The comparison with ASP also requires:

• module revenue, divided by
• modules sold in MW,

on the same basis and period. The recent Saatvik financial metrics report revenue growth and margins, but do not provide module revenue and MW sold from which a company-reported ASP can be calculated. In addition, if the order includes EPC, BOS, logistics or other services, its implied Rs/MW is not directly comparable with a pure module ASP.

What the latest operating data suggests

Saatvik’s consolidated revenue fell 68.2% QoQ in Q1 FY27, while consolidated EBITDA margin was 8.3%, versus 7.3% in Q4 FY26 ^{[5] [2]}. This shows significant business volatility, but does not isolate module pricing.

Peer margin movements provide only a directional check: Vikram Solar’s consolidated EBITDA margin declined to 8.9% in Q1 FY27 from 17.4% in Q4 FY26 ^[6], while Websol’s declined to 34.9% from 37.2% ^[7]. That pattern is consistent with pressure from pricing, mix, utilization or input costs, but it is not evidence of a specific market ASP.

Conclusion: the order realization can be expressed as Rs 297.5/X Cr per MW, but it cannot yet be judged above or below Saatvik’s reported ASP. Nor can it be definitively matched to current domestic module-price trends: no current market ASP benchmarks or news-sourced pricing evidence are available, and peer margin compression is only an indirect proxy.

_Scope note: this comparison also included Ram Ratna Wires Limited (RAMRAT); Shilchar Technologies Limited (SHILCTECH); Ravindra Energy Ltd (RELTD), which the answer above does not cover. Ask about any of them for a full side-by-side._