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
Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
BP abandons green hydrogen project in Australia in shift towards oil and gas
July 24 (Reuters) - BP (BP.L), opens new tab will exit its planned green hydrogen production facility in Australia as the British energy major pivots back to oil and gas, a spokesperson said on Thursday. The company has informed its partners in the Australian Renewable Energy Hub (AREH) that it intends to exit the project as operator and equity holder, the spokesperson told Reuters in an emailed statement. The oil major has slashed planned renewables spending and refocused investments to oil and gas after underperformance in recent months led to criticism from investors. The AREH aims to develop up to 26 gigawatts (GW) of solar and wind capacity to produce as much as 1.6 million tonnes of green hydrogen per year, making it one of the world's largest renewable energy projects. BP currently has a 63.57% stake in the project, according to the company's website. The other joint venture partners include privately owned InterContinental Energy and CWP Global.
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Aussie woman is fired from her FIFO job after major mistake that cost bosses more than $200k: Wait till you find out what happened
A hairdresser-turned FIFO worker has been awarded $30,000 in compensation after she was unfairly sacked from a mine site over a costly gold-dumping debacle. Jamie-Lee Corless-Crane was employed as a pit technician at Aurenne's open cut Mt Ida mine site near Menzies, Western Australia, in January. The former hairdresser was involved in a dig site mix-up that cost her employer about $200,000, after 54 ounces of gold were accidentally dumped. The Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of the former hairdresser and DJ, ordering Aurenne Management Services to compensate her for four months' wages. A key role of a pit technician is to guide the excavator operators to ensure the correct location is mined and that the mined product is taken to the correct stockpile. Aurenne claimed Ms Corless-Crane's failure to check a dig site against a map she had been given led to 54 ounces of gold being wasted, with the gold taken to a dump instead of a processing plant. Although the employer accepted more experienced colleagues gave her incorrect paperwork, it contended she failed to exercise 'due diligence' to ensure an excavator operator worked in the correct area. But FWC deputy president Melanie Binet found the inexperienced pit technician was treated harshly and unfairly dismissed. She ordered the company to pay her four months' wages. 'Ms Corless-Crane was not responsible for the loss of 54 ounces of gold,' she said. 'Ore had already been lost before she was called to the mining location. 'The loss of ore occurred due to an error in the markup by people far more qualified than Ms Corless-Crane. 'The opportunity to identify the error earlier was missed by the excavator operators and geology team members operating during daylight hours with far better visibility and more experience than Ms Corless-Crane.' The employee who was ultimately responsible for the loss of the ore was given a written warning only. Ms Binet said the company did not appear to have extended the same level of empathy to Ms Corless-Crane. 'She was a junior, inexperienced employee working in the early hours of the morning on her first night shift of swing, is a single mother, the income earner for herself and her young child, with caring responsibilities for her elderly grandparents,' she said. 'In determining to impose a different disciplinary outcome on the surveyor, Aurenne appear to have failed to give weight to the fact that Ms Corless-Crane has significantly less qualifications and experience in the industry. 'The surveyor, whose error on the evidence tendered, was far more fundamental and was the root cause of the ore loss.' At the time of her dismissal, Ms Corless-Crane's annual salary was $100,000. Since her dismissal, the former hairdresser said she has applied for similar positions but has not been successful. Ms Corless-Crane told the FWC that while she was a trained hairdresser and a DJ she hadn't explored employment in these fields again because she would not earn as much and would lose her home.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Eyewatering price demanded for this dilapidated rental property perfectly sums up the grim state of Australia's housing crisis: 'It's a disgrace!'
A dilapidated rental listing in Sydney 's inner west has sparked outrage, with critics calling it misleading and emblematic of Australia's worsening housing crisis. The two-bedroom apartment in Burwood, about 10km from Sydney's CBD, was listed at an eyewatering $550 per week, despite its rundown state. The property has just one bathroom, no parking, and according to photos previously published on a kitchen with exposed pipes, peeling walls and missing drawers. Although the listing has since been removed from that site, it remains live on Raine & Horne's website, where only an exterior shot of the home is shown. The listing previously claimed the property features a 'good condition kitchen & bathroom.' The misleading description has drawn criticism from renters and housing advocates amid the ongoing cost of living crisis. 'It's completely outrageous that young people are being forced to pay $550 a week for properties that are literally falling apart,' Angus Fisher, the President of the University of Sydney's Student Representative Council, told Daily Mail Australia. 'It's a disgrace! 'Students and young renters are being priced out, pushed into dangerous conditions, and treated like the leftovers in the rental market.' Mr Fisher added that renters deserve better than being offered substandard homes. 'We're seeing the consequences of a broken system where the profit making of real estate firms can occur without any human dignity,' he said. 'The government needs to step in with real rent controls, stronger tenancy protections, and a commitment to building safe affordable housing. Right now, renters are being served a derelict deal.' The rental was previous listed for $495 per week in 2024, rising by around 11 per cent in a single year. In 2020, laws were introduced in New South Wales to make it clear that rental properties had to meet specific minimum standards to be considered fit to live in. These included being structurally sound, having adequate lighting and ventilation, proper plumbing and drainage, and access to electricity or gas with a sufficient number of sockets. Properties were also required to have hot and cold running water and private bathroom facilities. Breaching these requirements could result in fines of up to $11,000 for individuals and $71,500 for agencies. Further reforms were rolled out from 31 October 2024 and 19 May 2025, including limiting rent increases to once per year across all leases, including those signed before the reforms. Tenants could no longer be charged for application costs such as background checks or lease preparation. Landlords were required to provide a valid reason to end a tenancy, even at the conclusion of a fixed term, and, in some cases, had to supply supporting documentation. New restrictions on re-letting and extended notice periods were introduced, giving tenants more time to secure alternative housing. Pet laws were also updated, landlords could only refuse a pet for limited reasons and were required to respond to pet requests within 21 days, or approval would be granted automatically.
