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 Vivo Pizza performance in the Malaysia and how they change over time
See what factors influence Vivo Pizza performance in the Malaysia 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
Search among the top brands by number of locations
An analysis of Vivo Pizza' competitors in the Malaysia
An analysis of Vivo Pizza' competitors in the Malaysia
Top-5 brands that brand's customers also visit
In Cafés & Restaurants
·Jun – Aug 25
Vivo Pizza is in the top 1% of brands
Sample of brands in the same percentile
Cafés & Restaurants
Market performance percentile shows the brand’s share of foot traffic, revealing its competitive strength and customer preference in the cafe & restaurants industry.
Vivo Pizza holds a leading market position in Malaysia's Cafe & Restaurants industry with a percentile of 99, indicating it captures a significant share of customer foot traffic compared to its competitors. Its market performance is top 1%. Performance peers like Seoul Garden, Donkai, Souper Tang, Dragon-i, KyoChon 1991, and SOI 55 THAI KITCHEN are within the same percentile range.
Customer satisfaction reflects how well Vivo Pizza meets customer expectations, influencing loyalty, positive reviews, and repeat business in Malaysia.
Vivo Pizza demonstrates high customer satisfaction in Malaysia, with an overall CSAT of 97%, a 2.9pp increase year-over-year. Satisfaction levels vary by state: Malacca (99%), Selangor (98%), Johor (97%), Kuala Lumpur (96%), and Penang (91%). This indicates strong performance across regions.
Average check reveals how much customers spend per visit, impacting revenue and profitability at Vivo Pizza restaurants in Malaysia.
Vivo Pizza's average check in Malaysia is 58.5 MYR, a 14.1% increase year-over-year. Average check varies by state, with Johor at 60 MYR, Malacca at 59.7 MYR, Selangor at 56.9 MYR, Penang at 55.1 MYR, and Kuala Lumpur at 50.4 MYR.
Number of outlets indicates Vivo Pizza's market presence and accessibility, influencing brand visibility and customer reach across Malaysia.
Vivo Pizza has a total of 22 outlets in Malaysia. Distribution varies by state: Johor (10), Selangor (4), Kuala Lumpur (3), Perak (2), Penang (1), Malacca (1), and Negeri Sembilan (1). This reveals a concentration of outlets in Johor.
Competitor analysis helps Vivo Pizza understand its competitive landscape and identify opportunities to differentiate its offerings in Malaysia.
The top competitors for Vivo Pizza in Malaysia, based on cross-visitation, are KFC (2.51), OldTown White Coffee (2.24), Tea Garden (2.24), ZUS Coffee (1.89), and KyoChon 1991 (1.62). This data shows brands that Vivo Pizza customers also visit.
Traffic workload by hours shows customer flow, aiding in staffing and resource allocation to optimize service during peak times.
Vivo Pizza experiences peak traffic between 10:00 AM and 9:00 PM, with the highest workload occurring between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM. Minimal activity is observed between 12:00 AM and 7:00 AM. Data reveals peak hours for staffing.
Understanding consumer segments helps Vivo Pizza tailor marketing and products to appeal to specific groups, increasing brand relevance.
Vivo Pizza's customer base shows a gender affinity index of 121 for women and 83 for men, suggesting women are overrepresented. Gen X has an index of 61, Gen Y of 104, and Gen Z of 116, showing Gen Z and Y are overrepresented.