Skip to content
51

iphone 15 panzerglas

Worth a look

Shows searches that convert (21.4% search→purchase), but a deep review moat (92,404 avg reviews) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 95Growth 22Conversion 100Competition 24Returns 97Price range 23Avg price 24Brand share 15Review moat 0Quality gap 63

Conversion

Incredible21.4%

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

Returns

Incredible0.6%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Market size

Incredible€2.6M

€2.6M/yr · 1.4M searches

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Competition

Bad71%

top-5 click share — a locked-up shelf

Avg price

Bad€8.65

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Bad€5.30–€17.86

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

Growth

Bad-6.8%

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

Brand share

Bad94%

top-5 brand share — brand-locked demand

Review moat

Bad92,404.4

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Competition

The top 5 products capture 71% of clicks — a locked-up shelf that new listings rarely crack.

Brands

8 falling

Sellers

23

Top-5 brand share

94%

Open market

3%

  • NEW'C48%
  • JETech24%
  • TOCOL10%
  • OMOTON9%
  • SPARIN2%
  • TORRAS2%
  • Open — no brand owns it (2 brands, 3%)

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%€256K20%€512K30%€769K40%€1.0M1001K10K100K1.0M Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 15 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — -6.8% search growth over the last 90 days.
60K40KHoliday '24Spike '25Black Friday '25SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Jul, Aug, Sep · busiest ÷ quietest = 2.1×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Qualität insgesamt17%

“Super Produkt”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit17%

“Easy”

Gesamtgröße15%

“Passform stimmt”

Montage/Installation10%

“Installation war easy”

Fall/Aufprallschutz9%

“Handy schutzfolie”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis7%

“Extrem lohnenswert”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt7%

“gleiche Beschreibung, gleiche Fotos...”

Stärke2%

“Easy & robust”

Haftung/Klebrigkeit2%

“Die Schutzfolie ist super anzubringen”

Haltbarkeit2%

“Standfest / Bruch”

What buyers complain about

Gesamtgröße29%

“Passt nicht”

Haltbarkeit14%

“Haltbarkeit nein”

Qualität insgesamt11%

“Leider super super schlechte Qualität”

Gesamt anzeigen5%

“Die Screen passt nicht”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis3%

“Schade bei dem Preis”

Stärke3%

“Fraglich wie stabil die Gläser sind”

Kompatibilität – insgesamt3%

“Ungeeignet für Biometrie”

Defekt Material/Teile2%

“Kabel defekt”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt2%

“Es hält nicht, was es verspricht”

Funktionalität insgesamt2%

“Wet wipe/Dry Wipe verschmieren nur den Handy-Bildschirm, das Pazerglas haftet nicht ordentlich und es bilden sich Luftbläschen”

Top return reasons

Gesamtgröße59%
Kompatibilität – insgesamt9%
Gesamt anzeigen6%
Funktionalität insgesamt4%
Qualität insgesamt3%
Haftung/Klebrigkeit3%
Defekt Material/Teile3%
Haltbarkeit2%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt1%
Fall/Aufprallschutz1%