Jio Platforms paid substantially lower fees to investment bankers for India's largest-ever initial public offering than Hyundai Motor India did for its record-breaking issue in 2024, according to issue expense disclosures reported on 26 October 2026.

The fee comparison

Jio paid Rs 196.2 crore in fees and commissions to its 19 book-running lead managers (BRLMs) for its Rs 30,213 crore IPO — just 0.65% of the issue size. By comparison, Hyundai Motor India paid Rs 493 crore to five BRLMs for its Rs 27,870 crore IPO in 2024, equivalent to 1.77% of the issue size.

In other words, Jio's IPO was approximately 8% larger than Hyundai's, but its banker fee pool was about 60% smaller. The difference extended to overall issue expenses: Jio's estimated IPO expenses stood at Rs 469.7 crore, or 1.56% of the issue size, compared with Hyundai's Rs 624 crore, or approximately 2.2%. Jio's expense disclosures included Rs 50 crore for advertising and marketing, Rs 50.6 crore for selling commissions and Rs 45 crore for miscellaneous expenses.

Why bankers accepted less

Structure explains part of the gap. Hyundai's IPO was entirely an offer for sale, with proceeds going to the selling shareholder, while Jio's was a fresh issue. Jio's issue also closed with approximately 22 times subscription, compared with 2.4 times for Hyundai's offering — demand that needed far less selling effort per rupee raised.

Scale and prestige also matter: 19 banks shared the Jio mandate, so each bank's individual fee was far smaller than the Hyundai split across five banks, but the league-table credit for India's biggest IPO carries its own value. Jio Platforms is scheduled to list on the BSE and NSE on 28 October 2026 at 10 am, with the issue price fixed at Rs 1,119 per share.

Why it matters for founders

IPO costs are negotiable, and scale is leverage: the bigger and more subscribed the issue, the lower the percentage bankers need to take. For founders planning a listing, Jio's 0.65% fee versus Hyundai's 1.77% is a benchmark to carry into banker negotiations — and a reminder that the fee conversation starts with demand, not with the fee schedule.