Skip to content
59

5/16 fuel filter

Worth a look

Shows low returns (1.0%), but a failed launch gate (market size, growth, or returns) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 21Growth 56Conversion 87Competition 61Returns 95Price range 33Avg price 38Brand share 77Review moat 75Quality gap 53

Returns

Great1.0%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Great9.9%

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

Brand share

Great58%

top-5 brand share — no brand owns this niche

Review moat

Good517.92

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Competition

Good48%

top-5 click share — leaders hold, buyers still browse

Growth

Good+29.3%

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

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Avg price

Okay$10.50

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Okay$6.28–$19.34

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

Market size

Bad$85K

$85K/yr · 82K searches

Competition

The top 5 products take 48% of clicks — established leaders, but buyers still shop beyond them.

Brands

23 falling

Sellers

55

Top-5 brand share

58%

Open market

37%

  • Wix23%
  • smseace17%
  • K&N8%
  • Wfdams5%
  • Strongthium5%
  • Podavelle5%

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%5%$4K10%$9K15%$13K20%$17K1101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 26 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — +29.3% search growth over the last 90 days.
3K2KSpike '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Apr, May · busiest ÷ quietest = 2.1×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Filtration20%

“Great filter”

Quality-Overall15%

“Decent quality”

Value For Money14%

“Good for the price”

Advertised Vs Actual Product10%

“As advertised”

Size-Overall9%

“The fit is solid”

Leak-Proof4%

“Didn't leak”

Fuel Efficiency3%

“provided clean fuel to lawnmower engine”

Efficiency2%

“Works very well”

Assembly/Installation2%

“Easy install”

Design-Overall2%

“Nicely built”

What buyers complain about

Filtration19%

“Bad filter”

Quality-Overall14%

“Quality control is lacking”

Leak-Proof13%

“This product leaks”

Durability10%

“Do not last”

Size-Overall8%

“it is smaller”

Fuel Efficiency3%

“Dirty fuel is a big problem with small engines”

Value For Money2%

“not worth the money”

Adhesion/Stickiness2%

“Internal glue failure”

Material Quality1%

“Bad materials bad quality do not waste your $”

Advertised Vs Actual Product1%

“buried way down in the product ad”

Top return reasons

Size-Overall71%
Filtration11%
Compatibility-Overall5%
Advertised Vs Actual Product3%
Defective Material/Parts1%
Leak-Proof1%
Fuel Efficiency1%
Material Quality1%
Quality-Overall1%
Connectivity-Overall1%