Skip to content
55

fass

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.0%), but weak search conversion (1.1%) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 17Growth 40Conversion 14Competition 84Returns 100Price range 82Avg price 95Brand share 43Review moat 87Quality gap 53

Returns

Incredible0.0%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Avg price

Incredible€28.01

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Review moat

Great251.48

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Competition

Great31%

top-5 click share — an open shelf

Price range

Great€9.85–€111.87

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

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Brand share

Okay79%

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

Growth

Okay+12.1%

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

Market size

Bad€67K

€67K/yr · 219K searches

Conversion

Bad1.1%

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

Competition

Clicks spread well past the top 5 (31% combined) — an open shelf where new products get seen.

Brands

21 falling

Sellers

24

Top-5 brand share

79%

Open market

17%

  • Garronda34%
  • plasteo15%
  • Curtec13%
  • FIXKRAFT11%
  • AGROHIT6%
  • F & R4%
  • Open — no brand owns it (15 brands, 17%)

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%€2K6%€4K9%€6K12%€8K1101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 65 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — +12.1% search growth over the last 90 days.
7K5KSpike '24Spike '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Oct · busiest ÷ quietest = 1.9×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Qualität insgesamt22%

“Super Produkt”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt19%

“Erfüllt ihren Zweck”

Stärke14%

“Robuste Qualität”

Gesamtgröße9%

“Passt wirklich alles rein”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis8%

“Wertvoll”

Speicherkapazität3%

“Das Fassungsvermögen ist ideal: Es passen problemlos zwei 25-kg-Säcke Futter hinein, sodass man immer einen guten Vorrat trocken lagern kann”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit2%

“Leicht zu tragen”

Materialqualität2%

“Sehr gutes Material”

Geruch2%

“Riecht nicht und ist gut verarbeitet”

Gewicht leicht2%

“Das Fass ist erstaunlich leicht”

What buyers complain about

Geruch20%

“Stinkt”

Qualität insgesamt13%

“Stinkt richtig übel und miese Qualität”

Dicke12%

“Dünneres Material”

Stärke6%

“hat überhaupt keine Festigkeit”

Materialqualität5%

“Eher dünnes Material”

Wasserbeständigkeit4%

“Wasser läuft aus”

Produktzustand4%

“Das Produkt macht einen gebrauchten Eindruck”

Auslaufsicher3%

“Undicht”

Dünn3%

“Dünnes Material”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis3%

“Schade ums Geld”

Top return reasons

Gesamtgröße49%
Geruch11%
Qualität insgesamt9%
Defekt Material/Teile5%
Auslaufsicher4%
Materialqualität2%
Produktzustand2%
Dünn2%
Wasserbeständigkeit2%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt2%