Skip to content
61

energieriegel radsport

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.1%), but a failed launch gate (market size, growth, or returns) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 64Growth 45Conversion 88Competition 60Returns 100Price range 71Avg price 87Brand share 0Review moat 66Quality gap 57

Returns

Incredible0.1%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Great10.1%

search→purchase rate — share of searches ending in a sale

Avg price

Great€19.78

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Good€9.55–€28.21

cheapest to priciest tracked listing — scored on the share inside $15–$100

Review moat

Good859.39

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Market size

Good€588K

€588K/yr · 293K searches

Competition

Good49%

top-5 click share — leaders hold, buyers still browse

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Growth

Okay+16.0%

90-day search growth — must beat 0% to launch

Brand share

Bad100%

top-5 brand share — brand-locked demand

Competition

The top 5 products take 49% of clicks — established leaders, but buyers still shop beyond them.

Brands

4 falling

Sellers

22

Top-5 brand share

100%

Open market

0%

  • CLIF Bar73%
  • Powerbar24%
  • HIGH52%
  • Nakd2%
  • Open — no brand owns it (0%)

Product shelf

Each bubble is one product — market share against review moat; bubble size tracks estimated sales, color grades how beatable the incumbent looks.

0%4%€24K8%€47K12%€71K16%€94K101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 31 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 54 weeks — +16.0% search growth over the last 90 days.
10K6KPrime Day '25Black Friday '25Spike '26JulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun

Peak months: May, Jul · busiest ÷ quietest = 2.6×

Reviews

What buyers praise and complain about, mined from review topics.

What buyers love

Geschmack insgesamt39%

“Lecker Riegel”

Geschmack8%

“Guter Geschmack”

Energieniveau7%

“Energie-Boost für jede Tour”

Süße7%

“Lecker und gute Zutaten für nen süßen Snack”

Qualität insgesamt6%

“Top Qualität”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis6%

“angemessener Preis”

Gesamtgröße5%

“Passt”

Inhaltsstoffe – insgesamt3%

“Perfekt für Zwischendurch, gesunde Zutaten”

Ernährungs Gehalt2%

“Die Proteinriegel schmecken gut”

Textur/Konsistenz – insgesamt2%

“Konsistenz echt gut”

What buyers complain about

Geschmack insgesamt19%

“Der erste Riegel schmeckte nicht”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis12%

“Bei dem Preis absolut unmöglich”

Geschmack12%

“Kein guter Geschmack”

Süße6%

“etwas süßlich”

Geruch5%

“Allerdings hatten in meiner 10x28g-Packung exakt die Hälfte der Riegel ein leichtes Schimmel-Stock-Aroma”

Feucht/Trocken3%

“Trockenriegel”

Qualität insgesamt3%

“Dre Sterne Abzug wegen mangelhafter Qualität”

Textur/Konsistenz – insgesamt3%

“komische Konsistenz”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit2%

“Unhandlich”

Einfaches Kauen/Schlucken1%

“lässt sich nur schwer essen”

Top return reasons

Produktzustand18%
Geschmack18%
Hartes Gefühl18%
Funktionalität insgesamt18%
Geschmack insgesamt9%
Haftung/Klebrigkeit9%
Feucht/Trocken9%