Skip to content
52

untertöpfe für pflanzen

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.5%), but a small market ($13K/yr) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 3Growth 20Conversion 24Competition 90Returns 97Price range 39Avg price 48Brand share 93Review moat 60Quality gap 62

Returns

Incredible0.5%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Brand share

Great42%

top-5 brand share — no brand owns this niche

Competition

Great25%

top-5 click share — an open shelf

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Review moat

Good1,080.1

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Avg price

Okay€11.77

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Okay€0.86–€23.99

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

Conversion

Bad1.9%

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

Growth

Bad-10.1%

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

Market size

Bad€13K

€13K/yr · 59K searches

Competition

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

Brands

43 falling

Sellers

56

Top-5 brand share

42%

Open market

53%

  • KINGLAKE11%
  • PEYOU10%
  • elho8%
  • auriikoop8%
  • Jordbrux5%
  • Muzhira5%

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%€3976%€7959%€1K12%€2K101001K10K100K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 72 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — -10.1% search growth over the last 90 days.
4K3KSpike '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Mar, Apr, May · busiest ÷ quietest = 6.3×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Qualität insgesamt17%

“Super Produkt”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt14%

“Entsprechen der Produktbeschreibung”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis14%

“Preis/Leistung OK”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit11%

“leicht zu handhaben”

Stärke10%

“stabiles Material”

Gesamtgröße6%

“Super, perfekte Größe”

Haltbarkeit4%

“gut haltend.”

Materialqualität3%

“Material wirkt hochwertig und geruchlos”

Gewicht leicht3%

“Die Töpfe sind leicht”

Dicke2%

“Das Plastik hat eine ordentliche Dicke”

What buyers complain about

Dicke28%

“Material ist extrem dünn”

Qualität insgesamt14%

“Schlechte Produktqualität”

Materialqualität8%

“Material zu dünn”

Stärke7%

“Material zu dünn”

Haltbarkeit5%

“Billig halt”

Gesamtgröße4%

“Drainagelöcher zu groß”

Geruch4%

“stinken extrem.”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit2%

“Die Handhabung ist schwierig”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis2%

“teurer”

Gleichgewicht/Stabilität2%

“Sehr sehr dünn, daher eingeschränkte Standfestigkeit, würde ich nicht nochmal kaufen”

Top return reasons

Gesamtgröße63%
Dünn8%
Qualität insgesamt7%
Materialqualität4%
Defekt Material/Teile3%
Geruch3%
Farbe2%
Stärke2%
Kompatibilität – insgesamt2%
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis1%