Skip to content
54

fixierpflaster

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.2%), but prices mostly outside the sweet spot ($3.39–$12.91) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 33Growth 25Conversion 91Competition 53Returns 99Price range 0Avg price 20Brand share 74Review moat 65Quality gap 63

Returns

Incredible0.2%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Great11.0%

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

Brand share

Good60%

top-5 brand share — brands hold most of the demand

Review moat

Good883.58

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Competition

Good53%

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

Market size

Okay€155K

€155K/yr · 193K searches

Growth

Okay+0.2%

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

Avg price

Bad€7.31

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Bad€3.39–€12.91

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

Competition

The top 5 products take 53% of clicks — established leaders, but buyers still shop beyond them.

Brands

19 falling

Sellers

33

Top-5 brand share

60%

Open market

33%

  • Noba Verbandmittel20%
  • ABENA12%
  • Medrull10%
  • Cutiderm10%
  • JFA Medical8%
  • Diffaxy6%

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%5%€8K10%€15K15%€23K20%€31K1101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 24 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — +0.2% search growth over the last 90 days.
6K4KSpike '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: May · busiest ÷ quietest = 2.1×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Haftung/Klebrigkeit24%

“Prima Haftkraft”

Qualität insgesamt16%

“Super Qualität”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt9%

“Erfüllen Zweck”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis9%

“Preis Leistung super”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit7%

“Gut handhabbar”

Farbe6%

“Bunt und gut”

Haltbarkeit5%

“Hält”

Stärke3%

“Hält super”

Gesamtgröße3%

“Passt so”

Materialqualität1%

“Also für den Preis ist das Material echt top”

What buyers complain about

Haftung/Klebrigkeit45%

“Haftfunktion unzureichend”

Qualität insgesamt6%

“Schlechte Qualität und kein Service”

Haltbarkeit6%

“Haltbarkeit ebenfalls nicht”

Stärke4%

“Hält nicht richtig”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit3%

“Unbrauchbar”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt3%

“Hält nicht, was es verspricht”

Hautgesundheit2%

“nicht auf der Haut”

Allergien2%

“Nicht frei von allergene”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis2%

“dementsprechend auch teurere Binden”

Geruch2%

“Stinkt chemisch”

Top return reasons

Haftung/Klebrigkeit36%
Gesamtgröße16%
Qualität insgesamt7%
Funktionalität insgesamt5%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt5%
Materialqualität4%
Geruch4%
Farbe2%
Dehnbarkeit/Erweiterbarkeit/Elastizität2%
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis2%