Skip to content
60

schröpfgläser

Worth a look

Shows a sweet-spot price point ($22.69 avg), but a failed launch gate (market size, growth, or returns) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 58Growth 17Conversion 52Competition 75Returns 73Price range 82Avg price 94Brand share 59Review moat 76Quality gap 63

Avg price

Great€22.69

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Great€8.97–€47.41

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

Review moat

Great477.89

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Competition

Great40%

top-5 click share — an open shelf

Returns

Good2.1%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Brand share

Good69%

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

Market size

Good€467K

€467K/yr · 480K searches

Conversion

Good4.3%

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

Growth

Bad-16.2%

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

Competition

Clicks spread well past the top 5 (40% combined) — an open shelf where new products get seen.

Brands

23 falling

Sellers

31

Top-5 brand share

69%

Open market

24%

  • KURGLAS20%
  • Helining16%
  • Lauschaer Glas15%
  • Uplife10%
  • InfiniteRelax10%
  • BACKLAxx7%

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%3%€14K6%€28K9%€42K12%€56K1101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)1 product missing review or click data not plotted

All 36 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — -16.2% search growth over the last 90 days.
13K8KSpike '24Holiday '24Spike '25Prime Day '25Black Friday '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

No pronounced peak months · busiest ÷ quietest = 1.4×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Qualität insgesamt34%

“Super Produkt”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit16%

“Einfache Handhabung”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt8%

“erfüllen ihren Zweck.”

Gesamtgröße6%

“Passt”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis5%

“☆Top Preis Leistung ☆ Super!”

Anleitung/Benutzerhandbuch/Fehlerbehebung3%

“Gebrauchsanleitung”

Effizienz3%

“effektiv”

Saugen2%

“Enorme Saugkraft”

Stärke2%

“robust”

Linderung von Muskelschmerzen2%

“Auch meine Freundin die Physio ist, meinte dies sei ein brauchbares Set”

What buyers complain about

Produktzustand13%

“Sehen aus wie benutzt”

Qualität insgesamt12%

“Mangelhafte Qualität”

Saugen10%

“Es wird kein starkes Vakuum erzeugt”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt8%

“Nicht das was erwartet wurde”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit7%

“Schwierig in der Anwendung”

Haltbarkeit6%

“Pumpe nach ca. einem Monat defekt”

Dicke5%

“Die Gläser sind dick”

Hautgesundheit4%

“Zu wenig Soog-Effekte auf der Haut”

Gesamtgröße4%

“Kleiner Gläsersatz feht”

Materialqualität4%

“O. K. Ist OK nur schade dass es nicht aus Glas ist”

Top return reasons

Gesamtgröße24%
Funktionalität insgesamt17%
Saugen8%
Qualität insgesamt6%
Materialqualität6%
Haltbarkeit4%
Defekt Material/Teile4%
Benutzerfreundlichkeit3%
Motorleistung3%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt3%