Skip to content
51

protein funnel

Worth a look

Shows no brand lock-in (top 5 brands take 50% of clicks), but soft demand (-6.5% this quarter) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 34Growth 22Conversion 66Competition 58Returns 80Price range 61Avg price 42Brand share 85Review moat 42Quality gap 40

Brand share

Great50%

top-5 brand share — no brand owns this niche

Returns

Great1.8%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Good6.0%

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

Price range

Good$4.57–$31.06

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

Competition

Good50%

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

Review moat

Okay2,335.65

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Avg price

Okay$11.01

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Quality gap

Okay4.5★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Market size

Okay$165K

$165K/yr · 250K searches

Growth

Bad-6.5%

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

Competition

The top 5 products take 50% of clicks — established leaders, but buyers still shop beyond them.

Brands

24 falling

Sellers

43

Top-5 brand share

50%

Open market

44%

  • FORESRUM17%
  • Tantanle13%
  • CAFEMASY7%
  • TEESSUE7%
  • HOSHI HEALTH7%
  • KongNai6%

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%$8K10%$16K15%$25K20%$33K101001K10K100K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 26 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — -6.5% search growth over the last 90 days.
5K3KHoliday '24Spike '25Prime Day '25SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

No pronounced peak months · busiest ÷ quietest = 1.3×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Quality-Overall14%

“quality and easy to use/clean”

Ease Of Use13%

“EASY TO USE”

Size-Overall10%

“I like the different sizes”

Storage Capacity10%

“easy to store”

Advertised Vs Actual Product10%

“As advertised”

Ease Of Cleaning6%

“It cleans easily”

Value For Money5%

“GOOD VALUE FOR MONEY”

Strength3%

“Solid product”

Durability3%

“They hold up well”

Efficiency3%

“It works and does the job”

What buyers complain about

Size-Overall42%

“Being so narrow”

Quality-Overall6%

“Low quality”

Leak-Proof4%

“some powder leaks out”

Ease Of Use4%

“was difficult to get out”

Durability3%

“Torn”

Advertised Vs Actual Product3%

“Very deceiving”

Design-Overall3%

“Bad design”

Strength2%

“Too flimsy”

Functionality-Overall2%

“It did not go well”

Ease Of Cleaning2%

“Impossible to clean”

Top return reasons

Size-Overall77%
Advertised Vs Actual Product5%
Functionality-Overall5%
Material Quality3%
Value For Money2%
Defective Material/Parts2%
Quality-Overall1%
Leak-Proof1%
Strength1%
Adhesion/Stickiness1%