Aldi is trialling grocery delivery in Australia. We put it to the test against Coles and Woolworths
Last week, the German-owned supermarket chain took another step into the Australian mainstream, trialling a grocery delivery service with DoorDash in Canberra ahead of a potential expansion around the country.
Aldi has long resisted offering deliveries, given the service would make a basket of groceries more expensive, undercutting its price advantage over Coles and Woolworths.
Guardian Australia tested it out.
I normally take an ad hoc approach to grocery shopping and visit a few different stores, rather than doing a weekly shop. There's an Aldi near my home, as well as a Coles, and a family-owned fruit and vegetable store.
Using my DoorDash account, I added 10 popular items to my Aldi basket, listing a Canberra address for delivery. These comprised a dozen free range eggs, a head of iceberg lettuce, a two-litre bottle of A2 brand light milk, a loaf of multigrain sourdough bread, a pack of RSPCA-approved chicken breast fillets, five brushed potatoes, five bananas, a 1kg bag of carrots, a pack of four beef mince burgers, and a 250g block of tasty cheese.
This came to a total of $52.57, or $58.88 once DoorDash's $6.31 service fee was included. I was offered free delivery on my first order.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
According to the DoorDash website, its loyalty program, DashPass, which costs $9.99 a month or $96 a year, would give me free delivery on orders over $30. Aldi would not disclose the standard delivery fees for Canberra, other than to say they are based on distance.
In Canberra, you can order from Coles on DoorDash, where a basket of 10 comparable items cost me $75.36 and from Woolworths on Uber Eats, where my basket worked out to $71.19 without any eggs, which weren't available. Both of these totals included service fees, but not delivery.
So, if I use a third-party platform like DoorDash to purchase from the major chains, the price increases significantly. But most shoppers would choose the supermarkets' in-house delivery services.
Unlike Aldi, Woolworths and Coles have built their own delivery services. Both require a minimum $50 spend to order from their websites.
My basket of 10 items came to $61.23 from the Woolworths website, and $56.17 from Coles, excluding delivery. This suggests Aldi – where my basket came to $58.88 including the DoorDash service fee – loses its usual significant discount to the major chains due to the costs associated with its third-party delivery platform.
The delivery fees are cheaper if you plan ahead, but, for the sake of comparison, I chose the fastest option possible, with Coles offering an 'as soon as possible delivery option', in an estimated 64 minutes, for $15.
The supermarket's website tells me if I signed up for a Coles Plus membership – for $19 a month or $199 a year – I would be eligible for free delivery.
Woolworths also offered a $15 fast delivery in 'approximately 50 minutes'. Its website tells me I would be eligible for free delivery on orders of $75 or more with a Delivery Unlimited subscription, for $15 a month or $119 a year.
The calculations change according to delivery fees, which in Aldi's case can vary according to how far you live from a store.
Aldi has acknowledged the cost of running an online shopping service will affect its prices.
The total cost of an online Aldi order includes the item prices, a DoorDash markup, delivery fee and service fee, all of which are set by the delivery platform.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
A spokesperson for Aldi said it was committed to being the most affordable supermarket on DoorDash but acknowledged some of its prices on the platform 'may vary slightly' from those in-store.
'This reflects the added convenience of having everyday essentials delivered quickly and easily,' they said.
I visited an Aldi store in person to check out prices, bearing in mind that my local is in Melbourne, not the same store as one of those delivering from Canberra.
Most of the prices were identical, although the iceberg lettuce, eggs, bananas and potatoes were a bit cheaper in the store.
Overall, my basket cost $48 when shopping in person, saving more than $10 compared to going through the DoorDash site with its service fee.
But I also had to factor in a 25-minute round trip on the tram to get there, which comes with its own costs – or a 40-minute walk or 20-minute bike ride up and down a steep hill.
Aldi tried a similar service with a third-party delivery provider in the UK, but it didn't last. The chain is also hesitant to build its own delivery system because that would add significant costs to the business, which would either result in higher grocery prices, or less profits for its German owners.
Prof Gary Mortimer, a retail expert at the Queensland University of Technology, says Aldi has had to respond to the delivery trend.
'Online food and groceries now represent anywhere between 10 to 12% of supermarket revenue,' Mortimer says.
'As Aldi enters into that space, even using a third-party provider like DoorDash, Coles and Woolworths will be looking at how they go about defending that market share.'
The retail expert Bronwyn Thompson says Aldi considers the competitive advantage of a delivery service to be worth the additional expense.
'If they're trying to be more of a 'whole shop' destination, this is part of that,' Thompson says.
'They've come a long way from just being a place where you'd get a few things.'
The Aldi Australia chief commercial officer, Jordan Lack, said: 'We know Australians will rejoice at the news of Aldi taking our first step in offering customers this convenient shopping format'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
I moved from China to Australia in my 20s unable to speak English and started working as a receptionist. I now own multiple properties and never worry about money: Here's my advice to Aussies
A migrant who moved from China in his twenties unable to speak English says Australians need to have at least $5million worth of investment properties to enjoy a comfortable retirement and avoid being stuck in the middle class. Alex Shang, the founder of AusPropertyStrategy, told Daily Mail Australia the biggest mistake someone could make was aspiring only to own their own home as an owner-occupier. 'If their goal is to live like an everyday Joe, then they don't need to buy investment properties - they just own a home and that's it,' he said. 'They may forever stay in the middle class who pays the most taxes compared to lower class or the rich. 'Once they buy a home, their borrowing capacity is used up and there is no way for them to buy another property, so basically they're stuck or they can choose to go for rent-vesting; they rent a place where they work and then use the money to invest in another city.' With house prices rising in Australia over the long term, pushing Sydney's mid-point value to $1.5million, properties with a backyard are regarded as a better way to build wealth for the future, as surging population growth makes residential land more valuable. 'An apartment for $700,000 to $800,000 is a viable option in Sydney - the price will not increase much meaning they have a place to call home but their wealth will not increase,' he said. 'For the same amount of money, $800,000 can still buy you a standalone house in Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide with good capital growth and good rental yield.' With house prices rising in Australia, over the longer-term, properties with a backyard are regarded as great way to build wealth for the future, as surging population growth makes residential land more valuable (pictured is Oran Park in Sydney's outer south west) Mr Shang moved to Sydney from the Chinese city of Shenyang at age 24 in 2005, after completing a Bachelor of Economics majoring in share trading. 'I couldn't speak a word of English when I came,' he said. 'I did well in written English and listening, reading but not speaking.' He began his career in Australia working as a receptionist for a real estate company, before getting Masters degrees in accounting and business administration. The 44-year-old property investor admitted his first few Sydney apartment purchases weren't successful, leading him to now focus solely on buying houses, based on the scarcity of available land. 'I lost money on those - in the latter days I sold everything because I lost a lot of money; I need to sit down and think about what I did wrong,' he said. 'I found out that if I were going to invest in houses from the same time as I bought the first apartment, I would have made a lot of money, a lot. 'I sold all of the apartments and started buying houses and from there I always made money, never lost a cent.' After a slow start with a $400,000 two-bedroom unit in Kogarah in 2011, which made only modest capital gains - he learned from his mistakes and went on to buy houses across Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, and Melbourne, having previously also bought units in Wolli Creek and Arncliffe. He has also written a Mandarin-language book for Chinese buyers - Australian Property Strategy - on how to grow a property portfolio in Australia. 'Land is scarce and apartments, like building on top of each other, they can increase the supply by many times easily; they can't increase the supply of land,' he said. The best time for someone to start would be in their twenties, based on the idea of first chasing houses that would get strong capital growth followed by buying properties with higher rental yields, or income as a proportion of the home's value, Mr Shang explained. 'In the first 10 years, they buy high capital growth properties; the second 10 years, they buy high rental yield properties and then when they reach retirement, they need to sell a few of their properties and pay off the debt,' he said. Mr Shang declined to say how much his portfolio was worth or how many properties he owned, as the director of a membership-based company offering 20-year mortgage investment strategies. 'There are a few things I don't talk to anyone: that includes how much money I have, how many properties I own and my family because I think that's my privacy,' he said. 'If I tell people how much I have, everyone will want a piece of it; the taxman will want a piece of it.' But he said he continues to live modesty, driving a $20,000 Toyota Corolla occasionally but mostly getting around on a motorbike. 'I like to keep low key; I don't wear expensive clothes; no luxury cars; I ride a motorbike actually and it's cheap to maintain,' he said. 'I invested in some properties and then I don't need to worry about money anymore. 'But I've bought and sold properties pretty much in each capital city in Australia.' His rule for sound investment is to look at markets with population growth and a diversified economy. 'It depends on how you define value: I never buy properties just because it's cheap - I need to see the future of it,' he said. 'If I don't see the future, I don't buy. For property to increase in price, there are a few fundamental factors you need to consider: one, is population growth and then you need to have a lot of job opportunities.' When it came to having an investment strategy, he said it wasn't about the number of investment properties someone had that made them rich. 'It's not the number of properties, it's how much they're worth,' he said. 'If you ask me today, I would say $5million to $7million but in investment properties, excluding their owner-occupied property.' Mr Shang argued a property portfolio worth more than $5million was more likely to generate passive income of $350,000 a year that would enable someone to either retire early or have an income stream to have a comfortable retirement. He argued that someone with a $5million investment portfolio could invest the rental income in an exchange trade fund (ETF) on the Australian share market, and earn seven per cent returns every year. 'But if you have five properties, worth $5million, then you're really rich,' he said. 'If you want to, depend on yourself, then you need to have a net worth of about $7million to live comfortably. 'Holding properties with positive cashflow and use the cash to invest in ETF is good, as long as the yield is more than the mortgage interest rate.' The banks typically lend an owner-occupier five times their salary before tax. But if an individual or a couple are buying investment properties, they can borrow six times their pay. While that's considered to be in the mortgage stress territory, income from renters means a borrower can more easily service the home loan. 'Usually, you get a little bit more borrowing capacity if you buy an investment property because the investment property will generate some rental income,' he said. 'That rental income is considered part of your personal income and if your personal income jumps, your borrowing capacity jumps.' Passive income from rental properties also means someone has a better chance of retiring early, and an investor can also claim rental losses on tax through negative gearing. 'On retirement, one can choose to own a few debt free houses to enjoy future capital growth and current cashflow,' he said. 'If there is no debt, it's great for a stress free life but bad for investment in terms of cash on cash return.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
MAJOR change considered for world-famous New Year's Eve fireworks that could see Aussies fork out for the event
Revellers hoping to score a front-row seat to Sydney 's iconic New Year's Eve fireworks could be told to pay $50 for the privilege. North Sydney Council is considering a proposal for one of the city's most popular vantage points to be transformed into a ticketed zone. The plan, set to be debated at a meeting on Monday, would introduce paid access to Blues Point Reserve. The site regularly draws thousands on December 31, offering a harbourside view of the midnight and 9pm fireworks shows. Access to Blues Point, Bradfield Park and Lavender Bay is currently free with the council covering the cost of crowd safety, traffic control, waste management and event infrastructure. But amid growing financial pressures, councillors are being asked to consider ticketing as a way to gain back some of the expenses. A report to the council estimated the total cost of staging the event at $1.086million. Introducing ticketing at Blues Point alone would add another $95,000 in expenses for staffing, scanners, security and public communications, bringing the overall cost to $1.181million. But with 8,000 tickets sold at $50 each, the proposal said the council could generate $400,000 in revenue, reducing its net expenditure to $781,000. Supporters have argued ticketing would guarantee attendees a spot at a premium location and help ease congestion, especially the dawn queues that have become more frequent in recent years. But the move has sparked concerns over fairness and public access. Critics have warned that charging for an event traditionally free to the public could tarnish the council's reputation and spark backlash over monetising public land. The council's report identified potential risks, such as fake ticket scams, disruptions to entry scanning from mobile data dropouts, and frustration from patrons anticipating amenities the ticket does not include. A similar ticketing trial at Blues Point in 2018 saw mixed results. While most ticketholders rated the experience highly, many residents and local businesses were less impressed, citing reduced access, a drop in foot traffic, and equity concerns. A community survey conducted at the time found no clear consensus, though among those who supported ticketing, full cost recovery was the preferred model. The council is now considering three options: ticketing all three sites to fully recover the $1.2million cost, ticketing Blues Point only as a partial recovery model, or maintaining the current system of free, managed access. Staff have recommended the second option as a 'balanced' compromise, preserving free access at two major sites while recouping costs at the most in-demand location. If approved, the $50 ticket would be trialled this December, followed by community consultation before any long-term policy is introduced.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
UK and Australia sign Aukus treaty to build nuclear submarines as Lammy downplays US doubts
Australia and the UK have signed a 50-year treaty to cement the Aukus pact to design and build a new class of nuclear-powered submarine. Australia's defence minister, Richard Marles, and the UK's defence secretary, John Healey, signed the deal – dubbed the 'Geelong Treaty' – in Geelong on Saturday, with Marles saying it was among the most significant treaties between the two nations. It came as the US, which is not a party to the treaty, wavers on its own role in the trilateral Aukus agreement, after the Trump administration launched a review to examine whether it aligns with his 'America first' agenda. A joint statement released by the UK and Australia said the treaty would enable cooperation on the SSN-Aukus submarine's design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal, as well as workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems. The SSN-Aukus is intended to incorporate technology from all three Aukus nations. It will be built in northern England for the UK Royal Navy, and Australia plans to build its own in South Australia for delivery to the Australian navy in the 2040s. The treaty is yet to be released publicly and will be tabled in parliament next week. Marles told reporters the treaty will underpin how the UK and Australia work together to deliver the submarines. He said there were three parts to the treaty, including training in the UK for Australian submariners and other required roles, and 'facilitating the development' of infrastructure at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide. 'And finally, what the treaty does is create a seamless defence industrial base between the United Kingdom and Australia. This project is going to see Australian companies supplying into Great Britain for the building of submarines,' he said. 'It will see British companies supplying to Australia for the building of our own submarines here in Adelaide. Healey said the treaty would support tens of thousands of jobs in both Australia and the UK. 'It is a treaty that will fortify the Indo-Pacific. It will strengthen Nato and we're the politicians signing it today. But this is a treaty that will define the relationship between our two nations and safeguard the security of our country for our children and our children's children to come,' he said. Marles said the deal was 'another demonstration of the fact that Aukus is happening, and it is happening on time, and we are delivering it'. 'It's a treaty which will last for 50 years. It is a bilateral treaty which sits under the trilateral Aukus framework.' As part of the existing Aukus agreement, Australia will pay about $4.6bn to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future Aukus-class submarines. It will pay a similar amount to the US to support America's shipbuilding industry. Under the $368bn Aukus program, Australia is scheduled to buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US from the early 2030s. Earlier on Saturday, the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, appeared at an event in Sydney run by the Lowy Institute. Asked by the presenter if the UK was 'coming to the rescue because America is losing interest in Aukus', he said that wasn't the case, and that the deal was about '20,000 jobs between our two countries' and a secure partnership well into the future. Lammy dismissed concerns over the Trump administration's Aukus review, saying it would 'flush out any issues for them'. He said both the UK and Australian governments had also undertaken a review of the pact. 'All governments do reviews, and should do reviews, particularly when they involve big aspects of procurement and defence,' he said. Lammy said the world had entered a 'new era' of instability and that 'investing in defence is an investment in peace' because opponents 'realise that you are armed and capable'. The Trump administration's review is being headed by the Pentagon's undersecretary of defence policy, Elbridge Colby, who has previously declared himself 'sceptical' about the deal, fearing it could leave US sailors exposed and underresourced.
