Skip to content
49

funnel holder

Skip it

Soft demand (-40.4% this quarter) — this niche doesn't clear our bar today.

Market size 12Growth 5Conversion 30Competition 46Returns 96Price range 95Avg price 95Brand share 76Review moat 98Quality gap 47

Review moat

Incredible30.95

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Returns

Incredible0.8%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Avg price

Incredible$25.87

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Incredible$15.81–$47.76

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

Brand share

Great59%

top-5 brand share — no brand owns this niche

Quality gap

Okay4.5★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Competition

Okay57%

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

Conversion

Okay2.4%

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

Market size

Bad$50K

$50K/yr · 80K searches

Growth

Bad-40.4%

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

Competition

The top 5 products take 57% of clicks — established leaders, but buyers still shop beyond them.

Brands

17 rising

Sellers

38

Top-5 brand share

59%

Open market

36%

  • Lisle28%
  • KEHOSTAR12%
  • UNITEDPOWER7%
  • SKYJDM7%
  • Wayona5%
  • Yaocom5%

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%$5K20%$10K30%$15K40%$20K1101001K 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 19 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 59 weeks — -40.4% search growth over the last 90 days.
9K7KSpike '25Spike '26JunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun

Peak months: Jan, Feb · busiest ÷ quietest = 5.6×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Advertised Vs Actual Product21%

“Works as advertised”

Quality-Overall11%

“No complaints”

Storage Capacity10%

“Nice storage”

Ease Of Cleaning8%

“Very clean”

Magnetic Strength/Adsorption7%

“the best magnetic funnel holder”

Design-Overall6%

“The overall design is compact”

Efficiency5%

“Works perfectly”

Ease Of Use4%

“Easy”

Lubrication3%

“Ver nice funnel system for my oil change station”

Spray/Flow3%

“Great for dripping funnels”

What buyers complain about

Value For Money30%

“albeit a little expensive for what it is”

Functionality-Overall10%

“A half gallon mason jar doesnt stand very well on the bottom stand part”

Magnetic Strength/Adsorption10%

“Magnet doesnt stick to metal”

Design-Overall10%

“Poor design”

Leak-Proof3%

“issue of the funnel dripping oil after use”

Top return reasons

Size-Overall25%
Defective Material/Parts23%
Mounting12%
Advertised Vs Actual Product8%
Functionality-Overall7%
Magnetic Strength/Adsorption3%
Adjustability/Rotatability/Reclining3%
Metal Quality3%
Assembly/Installation3%
Compatibility-Overall3%