Skip to content
53

kohler fuel filter

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.5%), but a small market ($32K/yr) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 8Growth 72Conversion 95Competition 42Returns 98Price range 68Avg price 64Brand share 30Review moat 73Quality gap 19

Returns

Incredible0.5%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Incredible12.5%

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

Review moat

Good583.57

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Growth

Good+54.6%

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

Price range

Good$6.22–$34.08

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

Avg price

Good$13.70

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Competition

Okay60%

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

Brand share

Okay87%

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

Quality gap

Bad4.7★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Market size

Bad$32K

$32K/yr · 19K searches

Competition

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

Brands

12 rising

Sellers

75

Top-5 brand share

87%

Open market

11%

  • Kohler56%
  • Hipa15%
  • Venanoci ㅤ10%
  • Hippotech3%
  • Holmgillick3%
  • LiiQuu2%
  • Open — no brand owns it (6 brands, 11%)

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%$2K10%$3K15%$5K20%$6K101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 21 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 9 weeks — +54.6% search growth over the last 90 days.
700500May '26May '26May '26May '26Jun '26Jun '26Jun '26Jun '26Jul '26

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Filtration18%

“Good filter for the price”

Size-Overall18%

“Good fit”

Quality-Overall16%

“Good Quality”

Advertised Vs Actual Product14%

“Work as advertised”

Value For Money13%

“are an excellent value”

Fuel Efficiency5%

“Cleaner fuel”

Efficiency4%

“Work great”

Assembly/Installation4%

“Easy installation”

Ease Of Use2%

“Handy”

Product Condition1%

“The packaging now carries the new name”

What buyers complain about

Filtration18%

“Filter are junk”

Quality-Overall17%

“Poor quality control”

Leak-Proof16%

“started to leak after they were installed for just a single day”

Durability10%

“Already broke apart”

Size-Overall9%

“Too small ends”

Strength4%

“Very brittle plastic”

Material Quality3%

“Very cheaply manufactured”

Fuel Efficiency3%

“like it was fuel starved”

Value For Money3%

“Cheap is as cheap gets”

Instructions/User Manual/Troubleshooting2%

“No indicator or instructions on direction of fuel flow”

Top return reasons

Size-Overall51%
Filtration18%
Advertised Vs Actual Product10%
Compatibility-Overall9%
Defective Material/Parts3%
Leak-Proof2%
Quality-Overall1%
Value For Money1%
Assembly/Installation1%
Connectivity-Overall1%