Skip to content
72

regentonne

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.3%), but a failed launch gate (market size, growth, or returns) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 74Growth 95Conversion 5Competition 90Returns 98Price range 28Avg price 75Brand share 74Review moat 86Quality gap 57

Returns

Incredible0.3%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Growth

Incredible+116.8%

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

Competition

Great25%

top-5 click share — an open shelf

Review moat

Great286.11

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Avg price

Great€100.15

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Market size

Good€838K

€838K/yr · 2.1M searches

Brand share

Good61%

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

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Price range

Okay€20.31–€301.54

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

Conversion

Bad0.4%

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

Competition

Clicks spread well past the top 5 (25% combined) — an open shelf where new products get seen.

Brands

25 falling

Sellers

39

Top-5 brand share

61%

Open market

33%

  • Ondis2417%
  • Kreher14%
  • 4rain11%
  • Garantia10%
  • YourCasa9%
  • AMUR7%

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%€25K6%€50K9%€75K12%€101K1101001K10K 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 66 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — +116.8% search growth over the last 90 days.
100K60KPrime Day '24Spike '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul · busiest ÷ quietest = 12.4×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Qualität insgesamt27%

“Super Produkt”

Stärke13%

“Robuste Qualität”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt12%

“Alles besten wie beschrieben”

Gesamtgröße11%

“Passt”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis6%

“super Preis”

Montage/Installation5%

“Einfache Installation”

Design insgesamt4%

“Schönes Design”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit3%

“Super, praktisch, handlich”

Speicherkapazität3%

“Top Tonne, platzsparend; eine Empfehlung”

Materialqualität2%

“Material super Qualität super”

What buyers complain about

Qualität insgesamt14%

“Schlechte Qualität - Produktionsfehler”

Haltbarkeit11%

“Leider nach einem Jahr defekt”

Gesamtgröße11%

“Die nächste wird größer”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis9%

“Preis / Leistung stimmt nicht”

Auslaufsicher9%

“Leider sind ca. 400 Liter Wasser ausgelaufen, da die Wassertonne unten am Bodenrand leckte”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt5%

“Beschreibung verbrssern”

Geruch3%

“Die Tonne stinkt”

Materialqualität3%

“Total dünnes Material”

Wetterfest2%

“Leider hat die Regentonne nicht einmal den ersten Winter überlebt”

Dicke2%

“Die letzte Tonne, vor 15. Jahren gekauft, war vom Material doppelt so dick”

Top return reasons

Gesamtgröße42%
Defekt Material/Teile14%
Auslaufsicher8%
Farbe7%
Wasserbeständigkeit4%
Geruch4%
Kratzfestigkeit2%
Qualität insgesamt2%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt2%
Montage/Installation1%