Skip to content
55

throttle body

Worth a look

Shows a thin review moat (157 avg reviews), but high returns (10.1%) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 88Growth 18Conversion 27Competition 83Returns 8Price range 39Avg price 86Brand share 51Review moat 92Quality gap 70

Review moat

Great156.84

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Market size

Great$1.6M

$1.6M/yr · 1.0M searches

Avg price

Great$69.60

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Competition

Great32%

top-5 click share — an open shelf

Quality gap

Good4.3★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Brand share

Good74%

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

Price range

Okay$7.38–$223.44

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

Conversion

Okay2.2%

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

Growth

Bad-13.6%

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

Returns

Bad10.1%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Competition

Clicks spread well past the top 5 (32% combined) — an open shelf where new products get seen.

Brands

26 falling

Sellers

88

Top-5 brand share

74%

Open market

22%

  • A-Premium36%
  • Marsram17%
  • Dorman9%
  • GM GENUINE PARTS7%
  • GZGN7%
  • GELUOXI4%

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%4%$63K8%$126K12%$188K16%$251K1101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 70 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — -13.6% search growth over the last 90 days.
35K25KSepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

No pronounced peak months · busiest ÷ quietest = 1.3×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Size-Overall23%

“Fit great”

Quality-Overall15%

“Good quality”

Value For Money14%

“Excellent price”

Efficiency11%

“It works great”

Assembly/Installation10%

“Installed and it great”

Advertised Vs Actual Product7%

“worked exactly as expected”

Ease Of Use4%

“it was easy”

Functionality-Overall3%

“It worked just fine and keeps working”

Maintenance And Repair3%

“Easy fix so far seems to be working like a charm”

Durability2%

“Durability seems good”

What buyers complain about

Compatibility-Overall15%

“No-where near compatible”

Size-Overall13%

“It was bigger than the one on my car”

Functionality-Overall13%

“Did not Work Properly”

Durability10%

“Probably failing after 3 yrs”

Quality-Overall8%

“Bad quality”

Defective Material/Parts5%

“Not the right part”

Advertised Vs Actual Product4%

“its not included so I consider this to be false advertising”

Value For Money3%

“Cheap and not really worth the money”

Sensor3%

“Bad tac sensor”

Product Condition2%

“The product is used”

Top return reasons

Size-Overall21%
Compatibility-Overall21%
Functionality-Overall15%
Defective Material/Parts14%
Advertised Vs Actual Product5%
Sensor4%
Product Condition3%
Assembly/Installation2%
Connectivity-Overall2%
Value For Money2%