Skip to content
54

afm filterglas

Worth a look

Shows demand growing +424.6% this quarter, but brand-locked demand (top 5 brands take 100% of clicks) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 17Growth 100Conversion 86Competition 10Returns 99Price range 95Avg price 95Brand share 0Review moat 72Quality gap 37

Growth

Incredible+424.6%

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

Returns

Incredible0.1%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Avg price

Incredible€38.23

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Incredible€23.99–€45.27

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

Conversion

Great9.7%

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

Review moat

Good631.63

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Quality gap

Okay4.5★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Market size

Bad€68K

€68K/yr · 18K searches

Competition

Bad88%

top-5 click share — a locked-up shelf

Brand share

Bad100%

top-5 brand share — brand-locked demand

Competition

The top 5 products capture 88% of clicks — a locked-up shelf that new listings rarely crack.

Brands

5 falling

Sellers

26

Top-5 brand share

100%

Open market

0%

  • Dryden Aqua54%
  • Bayrol29%
  • SAXONICA8%
  • NATURE WORKS5%
  • Pool-Profi24.de4%

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%15%€10K30%€20K45%€31K60%€41K101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 8 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — +424.6% search growth over the last 90 days.
2K1KPrime Day '24Spike '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Apr, May, Jun, Jul · busiest ÷ quietest = 30.8×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Qualität insgesamt39%

“Super Produkt”

Filterung24%

“Gute Alternative zum Filtersand”

Materialqualität11%

“Perfekt klares Wasser - super Fltermaterial”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt8%

“Produkt entspricht der Beschreibung”

Gesamtgröße6%

“Sehr gut geeignet”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit3%

“Gut leicht zu handhaben”

Einfache Reinigung3%

“Vorher gut durchspülen”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis3%

“Auch wenn es teurer ist lohnt es sich, da wir jetzt nach 8 Jahren zum ersten Mal das Glas wechseln (rein prophylaktisch)”

Wasserbeständigkeit2%

“Und das Wasser ist super klar”

What buyers complain about

Filterung33%

“Glas filtert nicht so gut wie Sand”

Druck28%

“der Druck war höher.”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis17%

“Ist sein Geld nicht wert”

Top return reasons

Gesamtgröße31%
Filterung11%
Funktionalität insgesamt11%
Zertifizierungen11%
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis7%
Defekt Material/Teile6%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt6%
Materialqualität6%
Dicke3%
Montage/Installation3%