Skip to content
55

tablettenmörser

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.5%), but soft demand (-13.8% this quarter) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 39Growth 18Conversion 88Competition 40Returns 97Price range 77Avg price 50Brand share 61Review moat 43Quality gap 78

Returns

Incredible0.5%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Great10.3%

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

Quality gap

Great4.3★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Price range

Great€3.27–€55.19

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

Brand share

Good68%

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

Avg price

Good€12.04

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Review moat

Okay2,199.52

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Competition

Okay61%

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

Market size

Okay€196K

€196K/yr · 159K searches

Growth

Bad-13.8%

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

Competition

The top 5 products take 61% of clicks — established leaders, but buyers still shop beyond them.

Brands

18 falling

Sellers

63

Top-5 brand share

68%

Open market

25%

  • KMINA20%
  • Barhon18%
  • Eruaolytic16%
  • LisaCare8%
  • Fefod7%
  • Opret6%

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%€10K10%€20K15%€29K20%€39K101001K10K100K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 25 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — -13.8% search growth over the last 90 days.
3K2KSpike '25SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

No pronounced peak months · busiest ÷ quietest = 1.2×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Benutzerfreundlichkeit18%

“Super easy zum bedienen”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt15%

“Tut was er soll”

Qualität insgesamt14%

“Super Produkt”

Effizienz12%

“Klappt bestens”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis8%

“Preis Leistung super”

Einfache Reinigung4%

“Und lässt sich super reinigen mit einem feuchten Tuch”

Stärke4%

“robust”

Gesamtgröße3%

“Passt”

Dosierung3%

“Tablettenteiler Gut und Günstig”

Design insgesamt2%

“Schönes Design”

What buyers complain about

Haltbarkeit15%

“Defekt nach kurzer Nutzung”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit11%

“Nacharbeit erforderlich”

Funktionalität insgesamt10%

“Funktioniert,nur große Tabletten Probleme”

Gesamtgröße9%

“Kleiner als Angegeben”

Qualität insgesamt9%

“Billiges Produkt”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis6%

“Schade ums Geld”

Materialqualität4%

“Das Material ist ziemlich zerbrechlich”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt3%

“die Produktfotos sind total irreführend”

Griff2%

“Also nicht in der Hand halten wenn man knipst”

Stärke2%

“Brüchig und gefährlich”

Top return reasons

Funktionalität insgesamt33%
Gesamtgröße22%
Defekt Material/Teile5%
Qualität insgesamt5%
Kompatibilität – insgesamt5%
Haltbarkeit4%
Benutzerfreundlichkeit3%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt3%
Materialqualität2%
Stärke1%