Skip to content
37

knieschoner handball

Skip it

Soft demand (-47.1% this quarter) — this niche doesn't clear our bar today.

Market size 9Growth 1Conversion 16Competition 53Returns 19Price range 84Avg price 95Brand share 45Review moat 48Quality gap 80

Avg price

Incredible€27.84

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Great€7.00–€64.55

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

Quality gap

Great4.2★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Competition

Good53%

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

Review moat

Okay1,652.46

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Brand share

Okay78%

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

Returns

Bad7.4%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Bad1.3%

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

Market size

Bad€36K

€36K/yr · 100K searches

Growth

Bad-47.1%

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

Competition

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

Brands

14 falling

Sellers

77

Top-5 brand share

78%

Open market

19%

  • Rehband54%
  • hummel8%
  • ATHLETIC AESTHETICS5%
  • McDavid5%
  • LAUTER SCHUTZ5%
  • Kempa4%

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%10%€4K20%€7K30%€11K40%€14K101001K10K100K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 26 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 25 weeks — -47.1% search growth over the last 90 days.
3K2KJan '26Feb '26Mar '26Apr '26May '26Jun '26

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Komfort insgesamt25%

“Die Knieschoner sehen auf den ersten Blick gut verarbeitet und bequem aus”

Gesamtgröße24%

“passt perfekt”

Qualität insgesamt16%

“Bei Kempa dachte ich an Qualität,”

Griff8%

“Perfekter Halt”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis6%

“Preiswert”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit5%

“Praktisch und Hilfreich,Danke”

Schutz5%

“Kempa Persönliche Schutzausrüstung Arm Sleeve Ellbogenschoner”

Gewicht leicht3%

“sind zudem schön leicht”

What buyers complain about

Haltbarkeit20%

“Leider nur kurze Haltbarkeit”

Qualität insgesamt19%

“Minderwertige Qualität”

Gesamtgröße14%

“Sie fallen allerdings ziemlich eng aus”

Dicke9%

“Die Knieschoner sind sehr dünn”

Griff8%

“Polsterung verrutscht und nach”

Schmerzlinderung – insgesamt6%

“Die Knie war absolut aufgeschorfen”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis5%

“Das Geld nicht wert”

Kissen3%

“sind die Polster völlig deformiert und verschoben.”

Druckqualität2%

“Schriftzüge schon zur Hälfte wegradiert.”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit2%

“Nicht brauchbar”

Top return reasons

Gesamtgröße87%
Komfort insgesamt2%
Qualität insgesamt1%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt1%
Kissen1%
Dicke1%
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis1%
Griff1%
Defekt Material/Teile1%
Produktzustand1%