Skip to content
57

protein powder for teens boys

Launch it

A $979K/yr market growing +7.6% this quarter with returns at 0.0% — clears our launch bar.

Market size 77Growth 35Conversion 75Competition 38Returns 100Price range 95Avg price 95Brand share 0Review moat 33Quality gap 62

Returns

Incredible0.0%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Avg price

Incredible$36.85

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Incredible$18.13–$72.74

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

Market size

Great$979K

$979K/yr · 379K searches

Conversion

Great7.0%

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

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Competition

Okay62%

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

Growth

Okay+7.6%

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

Review moat

Okay3,183.83

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Brand share

Bad100%

top-5 brand share — brand-locked demand

Competition

The top 5 products take 62% of clicks — established leaders, but buyers still shop beyond them.

Brands

2 falling

Sellers

38

Top-5 brand share

100%

Open market

0%

  • Muscle Milk89%
  • TruHeight11%

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%$98K20%$196K30%$294K40%$392K1001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 18 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 36 weeks — +7.6% search growth over the last 90 days.
12K8KSpike '26Nov '25Dec '25Jan '26Mar '26Apr '26May '26

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Taste-Overall29%

“Awesome sauce”

Nutritional Content20%

“Excellent protein supplement”

Flavor10%

“Decent vanilla flavor”

Quality-Overall6%

“Good quality”

Value For Money5%

“Good value for money”

Solubility3%

“It mixes well”

Blend/Ratio3%

“blends very well in my bottle”

Advertised Vs Actual Product2%

“the product matched the description”

Sweetness2%

“I think that it may also satisfy my sweet tooth too”

Texture/Consistency-Overall1%

“The texture is good”

What buyers complain about

Taste-Overall31%

“It tastes HORRIBLE”

Flavor8%

“the flavor is gross”

Nutritional Content8%

“calories pretty high”

Value For Money5%

“Waste of money”

Texture/Consistency-Overall4%

“the texture is grainy”

Dilute/Watery3%

“Super watered down”

Quality-Overall3%

“Pretty low quality”

Sweetness3%

“not 0 sugar”

Advertised Vs Actual Product2%

“Misrepresentation on purpose”

Artificial Sweeteners2%

“a fake sugar Substitute”