Book a demo—
Join us for a demo where we'll discuss how Realytics can support your business growth and adaptability in changing market conditions

Vinkal Chadha
Managing Partner, Global Business Development
Search among the top brands by number of locations
Join us for a demo where we'll discuss how Realytics can support your business growth and adaptability in changing market conditions
Managing Partner, Global Business Development
See what factors influence Kayseri Mutfağı performance in the Turkey and how they change over time
See what factors influence Kayseri Mutfağı performance in the Turkey and how they change over time
Available by subscription
Available by subscription
Discover your traffic workload during different times of the day
Join us for a demo where we'll discuss how Realytics can support your business growth and adaptability in changing market conditions
Managing Partner, Global Business Development
In Cafés & Restaurants
In Cafés & Restaurants
An analysis of Kayseri Mutfağı' competitors in the Turkey
An analysis of Kayseri Mutfağı' competitors in the Turkey
Top-5 brands that brand's customers also visit
In Cafés & Restaurants
·Jun – Aug 25
Kayseri Mutfağı is in the top 2% of brands
Sample of brands in the same percentile
Search among the top brands by number of locations
Cafés & Restaurants
Market performance shows brand's foot traffic share, revealing competitive strength and customer preference in the Cafe & Restaurants industry.
Kayseri Mutfağı's market performance is at the 98th percentile, which positions it as a leading brand. This high percentile indicates a strong market presence and high customer preference. Competitors in similar range: Ot kafe, Köftes Balaban Kebap & Çibörek, Mazlumlar Muhallebicisi, Tavacı Refik, D-PO Pizza, Kocalar Dinlenme Tesisi.
Customer satisfaction reflects customer loyalty and brand perception. Tracking changes helps understand service quality and identify areas for improvement.
Kayseri Mutfağı's overall customer satisfaction is 65%, up 19.8 percentage points year-over-year. Central Anatolia Region shows the highest CSAT at 69%, up 22.9 percentage points, while Marmara Region shows 60%, up 14.9 percentage points. This indicates a significant improvement in customer perception.
Average check reflects spending per customer. Analyzing changes helps understand pricing strategy effectiveness and customer spending behavior.
Kayseri Mutfağı's overall average check is 499.6 TRY, up 11.9% year-over-year. Central Anatolia Region has an average check of 534.4 TRY, while Marmara Region's average check is 456.7 TRY. This shows higher spending per customer compared to last year.
Outlet count indicates brand reach and market coverage. Tracking changes shows expansion strategy effectiveness and regional focus.
Kayseri Mutfağı has 12 outlets in the Marmara Region and 5 outlets in the Central Anatolia Region. This indicates a stronger presence in the Marmara Region compared to the Central Anatolia Region.
Identifying competitors reveals the competitive landscape. Understanding customer cross-visitation helps refine marketing and target specific customer segments.
Kayseri Mutfağı's top competitors based on customer cross-visitation are Köfteci Yusuf (6.49%), Kahve Dünyası (6.49%), Starbucks (5.19%), Sosyal Tesisleri (3.90%), and BigChefs (3.90%). These brands represent the competitive set and customer preferences.
Traffic workload reveals peak hours and customer flow. Understanding these patterns enables efficient staffing and resource allocation.
Kayseri Mutfağı experiences peak traffic workload between 10:00 and 21:00, with the highest traffic between 12:00 and 14:00. Traffic is minimal during early morning hours (0:00-7:00), indicating operational hours are mainly during the day.
Consumer segment analysis informs targeted marketing. Gender and generation insights allow tailored campaigns and product positioning.
Kayseri Mutfağı's customer base has a high affinity for Women (93). Men are over-represented (104), indicating a strong interest. Gen X is significantly over-represented (277), suggesting a high affinity, while Gen Y is under-indexed (57), indicating lower representation relative to the average.