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
Search among the top brands by number of locations
See what factors influence Pizza Hut performance in the Thailand and how they change over time
See what factors influence Pizza Hut performance in the Thailand 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 Pizza Hut' competitors in the Thailand
An analysis of Pizza Hut' competitors in the Thailand
Top-5 brands that brand's customers also visit
In Cafés & Restaurants
·Jun – Aug 25
Pizza Hut is in the top 1% of brands
Sample of brands in the same percentile
Cafés & Restaurants
Market performance reveals brand's share of foot traffic, showing competitive strength and customer preference in the industry.
Pizza Hut in Thailand holds a leading market position with a percentile of 99, placing it in the top 1% of brands. This high percentile indicates a strong market standing relative to competitors like Tsunami Sushi Buffet, Amritsr, ชอบโซ้ยสุกี้, Samsen Villa, Three Monkeys Restaurant, and สาขา, all within a similar top-tier performance range.
Customer satisfaction (CSAT) reflects customer happiness and loyalty, directly impacting brand reputation and long-term revenue growth.
Pizza Hut in Thailand boasts an overall CSAT of 86%, a significant increase of 28.3 percentage points year-over-year. Nakhon Ratchasima Province shows the highest CSAT (95%), while Chiang Mai Province experienced a decrease (-6.1pp). CSAT fluctuated between 78.77% and 89.78% from May to July 2025, showing variability in customer sentiment.
Average check (Avg Check) indicates customer spending per visit, essential for understanding revenue trends and pricing effectiveness.
The overall average check for Pizza Hut in Thailand is 432.6 THB, reflecting a 6.6% increase year-over-year. Samut Sakhon Province leads with an average check of 681.8 THB. From May to July 2025, the average check varied between 384.13 THB and 522.28 THB, potentially influenced by promotional activities.
Number of outlets reflects brand's market reach and accessibility, influencing brand visibility and customer convenience.
Pizza Hut has a varying number of outlets across Thailand, with Pathum Thani Province having the most (13 outlets). Chon Buri and Nonthaburi Provinces each have 12 outlets. Distribution across provinces reveals strategic focus and market penetration efforts, with 10 provinces presented in total.
Competitor analysis identifies key rivals and customer preferences, enabling strategic positioning and competitive advantage.
Café Amazon (11.24%) is the most cross-visited brand by Pizza Hut customers in Thailand, followed by McDonald's (8.93%) and KFC (8.36%). This reveals potential overlap in customer base and highlights the competitive landscape, with Starbucks (6.92%) and The Pizza Company (5.19%) also being relevant competitors.
Traffic workload analysis helps optimize staffing and resource allocation, enhancing operational efficiency and customer experience.
Pizza Hut in Thailand experiences peak traffic workload between 10:00 AM and 8:00 PM, with the highest workload at 57.87% around 6:00 PM (18:00 hod). Traffic is minimal during early morning hours (0:00-8:00 hod), indicating the need for resource allocation during peak times.
Understanding consumer segments enables targeted marketing, improving engagement and brand resonance with specific demographics.
Pizza Hut's consumer base in Thailand shows a higher affinity towards women (80%) and men (114%). Among generations, Gen X (117%) and Gen Y (108%) are overrepresented, indicating higher engagement, while Gen Z (56%) shows underrepresentation.