Skip to content
53

mercury fuel filter

Worth a look

Shows low returns (1.0%), but a small market ($51K/yr) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 13Growth 90Conversion 87Competition 24Returns 95Price range 76Avg price 79Brand share 23Review moat 67Quality gap 24

Returns

Incredible1.0%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Growth

Great+98.3%

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

Conversion

Great10.0%

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

Avg price

Great$16.48

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Great$8.21–$37.38

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

Review moat

Good808.06

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Competition

Bad71%

top-5 click share — a locked-up shelf

Quality gap

Bad4.6★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Brand share

Bad91%

top-5 brand share — brand-locked demand

Market size

Bad$51K

$51K/yr · 31K searches

Competition

The top 5 products capture 71% of clicks — a locked-up shelf that new listings rarely crack.

Brands

10 rising

Sellers

48

Top-5 brand share

91%

Open market

7%

  • Quicksilver68%
  • MERCURY13%
  • Tvent3%
  • Qonsy3%
  • SeaSierra3%
  • HTYPX2%
  • Open — no brand owns it (4 brands, 7%)

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%$20K1101001K10K 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 104 weeks — +98.3% search growth over the last 90 days.
1K600Spike '24Black Friday '24Spike '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Apr, May, Jun, Jul · busiest ÷ quietest = 4.5×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Size-Overall28%

“Fits well”

Value For Money17%

“Great price”

Quality-Overall16%

“The build quality feels solid”

Advertised Vs Actual Product10%

“product as described”

Filtration8%

“Filters work”

Ease Of Use7%

“Easy to use and work well”

Assembly/Installation2%

“Installation was easy”

Maintenance And Repair2%

“Easy replacement for my mercury 4 stroke”

Efficiency1%

“Worked out great”

Leak-Proof1%

“it has not leaked at the seams”

What buyers complain about

Size-Overall25%

“Barbs were too small”

Quality-Overall9%

“It is garbage”

Advertised Vs Actual Product6%

“Didn't get what was pictured”

Value For Money6%

“They are spendy for what it is”

Defective Material/Parts6%

“Not the correct part for Mercury 115 4 stroke”

Water Resistance6%

“For some reason it doesnt separate the water”

Compatibility-Overall6%

“Not correct fit for mercury 60 hp fourstroke”

Connectivity-Overall4%

“They work just as good as OEM except the connections seem slightly thicker and harder to connect and disconnect”

Strength3%

“not as robust as Quicksilver”

Mounting3%

“short thus you cannot use the metal guide to keep the screw”

Top return reasons

Size-Overall56%
Compatibility-Overall12%
Advertised Vs Actual Product9%
Defective Material/Parts7%
Filtration4%
Product Condition2%
Value For Money2%
Leak-Proof1%
Assembly/Installation1%
Smell1%