Skip to content
61

body filler mixing board

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.4%), but a failed launch gate (market size, growth, or returns) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 19Growth 56Conversion 90Competition 42Returns 98Price range 74Avg price 85Brand share 50Review moat 82Quality gap 76

Returns

Incredible0.4%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Great10.7%

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

Avg price

Great$19.17

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Review moat

Great360.94

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Quality gap

Great4.3★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Price range

Good$7.90–$35.18

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

Growth

Good+29.9%

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

Brand share

Good75%

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

Competition

Okay60%

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

Market size

Bad$74K

$74K/yr · 36K searches

Competition

The top 5 products take 60% of clicks — established leaders, but buyers still shop beyond them.

Brands

13 rising

Sellers

44

Top-5 brand share

75%

Open market

21%

  • Clean Sheets30%
  • Custom Shop26%
  • KREFINISH8%
  • Performance Tool6%
  • Minatee4%
  • Saillong4%

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%10%$7K20%$15K30%$22K40%$30K1101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 16 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 65 weeks — +29.9% search growth over the last 90 days.
1K600Spike '25Spike '26MayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun

Peak months: Mar · busiest ÷ quietest = 2.2×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Ease Of Use22%

“Easy to use”

Ease Of Cleaning19%

“Definitely a handy addition to my cleaning supplies”

Quality-Overall18%

“Probably great for arts and crafts though, so I'll keep it for that”

Advertised Vs Actual Product13%

“Works like it should”

Value For Money13%

“Tried a a cheaper one and you get what you pay for”

Size-Overall3%

“The papers are a good size”

Material Quality2%

“Great with a piece of plywood”

Efficiency1%

“this works so much better”

Paint Quality1%

“It reminds me of the disposable paint palettes we used in art class, except in a more compact, thoughtful form”

Thickness1%

“Just thick enough”

What buyers complain about

Strength23%

“Somewhat flimsy”

Thickness14%

“Pages could have a little thicker to be perfect”

Adhesion/Stickiness9%

“poor adhesion to fiberboard backer”

Quality-Overall9%

“ok quality little on the small size”

Material Quality8%

“Would not recommend this board as it's material is not impervious to chemicals”

Ease Of Cleaning5%

“cleaning of the board much more difficult”

Ease Of Use5%

“just not easy to use”

Size-Overall5%

“Too small”

Advertised Vs Actual Product5%

“0/5 stars for false advertising”

Portability3%

“Not for automotive use”

Top return reasons

Size-Overall39%
Advertised Vs Actual Product11%
Material Quality11%
Quality-Overall8%
Defective Material/Parts8%
Wet Cleaning5%
Adhesion/Stickiness4%
Value For Money3%
Ease Of Use3%
Strength3%