Skip to content
58

power gel

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.0%), but a failed launch gate (market size, growth, or returns) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 54Growth 81Conversion 82Competition 18Returns 100Price range 73Avg price 95Brand share 0Review moat 75Quality gap 50

Returns

Incredible0.0%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Avg price

Incredible€24.21

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Conversion

Great8.8%

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

Growth

Great+74.6%

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

Review moat

Good519.67

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Price range

Good€6.52–€37.36

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

Market size

Good€361K

€361K/yr · 169K searches

Quality gap

Good4.5★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Competition

Bad78%

top-5 click share — a locked-up shelf

Brand share

Bad100%

top-5 brand share — brand-locked demand

Competition

The top 5 products capture 78% of clicks — a locked-up shelf that new listings rarely crack.

Brands

4 rising

Sellers

20

Top-5 brand share

100%

Open market

0%

  • Powerbar81%
  • Womanda12%
  • Dextro Energy4%
  • HIGH53%
  • 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%10%€36K20%€72K30%€108K40%€144K101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 12 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — +74.6% search growth over the last 90 days.
8K6KPrime Day '24Holiday '24Spike '25Prime Day '25Black Friday '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug · busiest ÷ quietest = 3.5×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Geschmack insgesamt21%

“schmeckt”

Geschmack16%

“Super Geschmack”

Energieniveau10%

“Super Energieboost”

Qualität insgesamt7%

“Absolutes Top-Produkt”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit5%

“Leichte Handhabung”

Textur/Konsistenz – insgesamt5%

“Bestes Gel – Perfekte Konsistenz ohne Nachtrinken”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis5%

“Super Preis-leistung top”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt3%

“Macht was es soll”

Blutzuckerspiegel2%

“ideal für Diabetiker T1D”

Ernährungs Gehalt2%

“Generell gilt: PowerBar-Produkte haben sich über alle Einheiten hinweg als magenschonend bewährt”

What buyers complain about

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis19%

“Teuer”

Geschmack insgesamt13%

“Erdnuss schmeckt nicht”

Auslaufsicher8%

“Undichte Verpackungen”

Süße4%

“Viel zu süß”

Verdünnt/wässrig3%

“Dünn wie Wasser”

Salzgehalt2%

“War nur etwas salzig”

Gesamtgröße2%

“Die Portionen könnten durchaus größer sein”

Haftung/Klebrigkeit1%

“Einziger Minuspunkt für mich ist, dass die einzelnen Gels teilweise von außen etwas klebrig sind, als sei bei der Abfüllung mal etwas daneben gegangen”

Geschmack1%

“Mir gefällt der Geschmack nicht”

Sauer1%

“Der süß-salzige Geschmack ist gewöhnungsbedürftig”