Skip to content
57

leonardo

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.6%), but a failed launch gate (market size, growth, or returns) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 63Growth 18Conversion 56Competition 96Returns 97Price range 82Avg price 92Brand share 0Review moat 73Quality gap 28

Returns

Incredible0.6%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Competition

Incredible17%

top-5 click share — an open shelf

Avg price

Great€21.73

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Great€5.56–€63.48

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

Review moat

Good597.12

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Market size

Good€564K

€564K/yr · 549K searches

Conversion

Good4.7%

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

Quality gap

Okay4.6★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Growth

Bad-15.0%

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

Brand share

Bad100%

top-5 brand share — brand-locked demand

Competition

Clicks spread well past the top 5 (17% combined) — an open shelf where new products get seen.

Brands

3 falling

Sellers

65

Top-5 brand share

100%

Open market

0%

  • Leonardo66%
  • LEONARDO HOME33%
  • Gerlach 17601%
  • Open — no brand owns it (0%)

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%1%€6K2%€11K3%€17K4%€23K1101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 101 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 36 weeks — -15.0% search growth over the last 90 days.
18K13KBlack Friday '25Nov '25Dec '25Jan '26Mar '26Apr '26May '26

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Qualität insgesamt24%

“Perfekt, super Ware”

Haustierfreundlich17%

“Katze mags”

Geschmack insgesamt11%

“Sooo tasty :-”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis7%

“Gerne wieder - das Preis Leistungsverhältnis passt (zumindest wenn man größere Gebinde kauft).”

Gesamtgröße5%

“Dazu waren die Kleinpackungen ideal”

Stärke4%

“robust, ohne plump zu sein”

Form/Stil4%

“Formschön, bunt und stabil”

Design insgesamt3%

“elegantes Design”

Feucht/Trocken3%

“Gutes Trockenfutter”

Dicke2%

“Schöne Gläser mit einem elegant dünnen Stiel”

What buyers complain about

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis14%

“Kein preiswertes Futter”

Dicke9%

“Etwas dünnwandig”

Qualität insgesamt8%

“sehr schlechte Qualität”

Haltbarkeit7%

“Halten nicht ewig”

Gesamtgröße4%

“Sie sind massiv”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt4%

“(Nicht wie am Foto, da hatte ich bereits getrunken”

Feucht/Trocken4%

“Trockenfutter”

Haftung/Klebrigkeit3%

“Nach 2 Jahren klebrig-deshalb weg”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit3%

“Nicht handlich”

Geschmack insgesamt2%

“leider,leider schmeckt es meinen Katzen nicht.”

Top return reasons

Gesamtgröße53%
Defekt Material/Teile7%
Gewicht schwer6%
Dünn6%
Form/Stil4%
Qualität insgesamt3%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt3%
Materialqualität2%
Kratzfestigkeit2%
Dicke2%