Skip to content
53

lidocaine roll on

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.0%), but a concentrated shelf (top 5 take 72% of clicks) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 69Growth 38Conversion 97Competition 24Returns 100Price range 50Avg price 61Brand share 29Review moat 24Quality gap 40

Returns

Incredible0.0%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Incredible16.0%

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

Market size

Good$714K

$714K/yr · 335K searches

Avg price

Good$13.36

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Good$5.05–$25.14

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

Quality gap

Okay4.5★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Growth

Okay+10.2%

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

Brand share

Okay88%

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

Competition

Bad72%

top-5 click share — a locked-up shelf

Review moat

Bad5,510.75

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Competition

The top 5 products capture 72% of clicks — a locked-up shelf that new listings rarely crack.

Brands

9 falling

Sellers

61

Top-5 brand share

88%

Open market

12%

  • HealthWise31%
  • Aspercreme28%
  • Salonpas9%
  • WELMATE7%
  • AUVON6%
  • ABSORBINE JR.6%
  • Open — no brand owns it (3 brands, 12%)

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%$71K20%$143K30%$214K40%$285K1001K10K100K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 12 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — +10.2% search growth over the last 90 days.
15K10KSpike '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Aug, Sep, Oct · busiest ÷ quietest = 2.5×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Efficiency15%

“Works well”

Smell12%

“Relaxing scent”

Joint Pain11%

“it actually works for joint pain”

Value For Money9%

“Less expensive”

Quality-Overall9%

“Excellent product”

Ease Of Use8%

“Easy to handle”

Ease Of Application6%

“Easy Glide On Applicator”

Advertised Vs Actual Product5%

“As Advertised”

Muscle Pain Relief4%

“It really helps with muscle pain”

Durability2%

“Been using for years, nice and compact”

What buyers complain about

Functionality-Overall15%

“Did Not Work”

Pain Relief-Overall12%

“No relief”

Ease Of Use11%

“Difficult to open”

Smell11%

“Horrible smell”

Value For Money4%

“WASTE OF MONEY”

Allergies3%

“itching bad from it”

Joint Pain3%

“I have arthritis really bad in several fingers on each hand”

Leak-Proof3%

“leaking issue”

Strength3%

“Not very strong”

Quality-Overall3%

“lack of quality control warrants 4 stars”