Skip to content
51

scouring pad

Worth a look

Shows low returns (0.2%), but a small market ($72K/yr) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 18Growth 30Conversion 83Competition 78Returns 99Price range 50Avg price 30Brand share 58Review moat 19Quality gap 28

Returns

Incredible0.2%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Great9.1%

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

Competition

Great37%

top-5 click share — an open shelf

Brand share

Good70%

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

Price range

Good$2.48–$27.55

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

Growth

Okay+3.9%

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

Avg price

Okay$9.57

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Quality gap

Okay4.6★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Review moat

Bad14,811.71

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Market size

Bad$72K

$72K/yr · 83K searches

Competition

Clicks spread well past the top 5 (37% combined) — an open shelf where new products get seen.

Brands

21 falling

Sellers

208

Top-5 brand share

70%

Open market

24%

  • Scotch-Brite42%
  • Amazon Basics9%
  • SCRUBIT7%
  • Mr. Clean7%
  • HOMEXCEL5%
  • AIDEA5%

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%3%$2K6%$4K9%$6K12%$9K1001K10K100K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 51 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — +3.9% search growth over the last 90 days.
30K20KPrime Day '24Spike '24Spike '25Prime Day '25Holiday '25Spike '26SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Apr, Aug, Sep · busiest ÷ quietest = 2.1×

Reviews

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

What buyers love

Ease Of Cleaning20%

“Cleans Great”

Value For Money14%

“Very affordable”

Quality-Overall14%

“The quality is solid”

Durability7%

“It is durable within the time frame”

Advertised Vs Actual Product6%

“AS advertised”

Ease Of Use4%

“Easy to remove”

Efficiency4%

“Works perfectly”

Soft Feel3%

“Gentle on the skin”

Scratch Resistance3%

“Doesn't leave scratches”

Size-Overall2%

“Fits in hand perfectly”

What buyers complain about

Durability14%

“Do not last”

Quality-Overall11%

“Lower quality”

Thickness10%

“Not as thick as it looks”

Ease Of Cleaning8%

“not good for cleaning”

Size-Overall6%

“it doesnt fit”

Value For Money4%

“Too expensive”

Advertised Vs Actual Product3%

“False advertisement”

Smell3%

“They stink”

Functionality-Overall3%

“Does not work as described”

Hard Feel2%

“Very scratchy”

Top return reasons

Size-Overall17%
Advertised Vs Actual Product14%
Value For Money11%
Quality-Overall6%
Thin6%
Material Quality6%
Functionality-Overall4%
Wet Cleaning3%
Hard Feel2%
Cleaning Modes2%