30 Jul 2025
Security

A platform which checks peoples deas to see if they work and if there ...

...is any steal it

Confidence
Engagement
Net use signal
Net buy signal

Idea type: Freemium

People love using similar products but resist paying. You’ll need to either find who will pay or create additional value that’s worth paying for.

Should You Build It?

Build but think about differentiation and monetization.


Your are here

Your idea, a platform to validate ideas and detect potential theft, falls into the Freemium category. This means people are generally interested in using such a tool, but convincing them to pay for it can be challenging. Given that we only found one similar product, this suggests there may be a niche but relatively unexplored market. However, this also means we have low confidence in our assessment of the idea. That similar product received high engagement (29 comments) which indicates interest. Given the lack of use/buy data, it will be critical to perform user testing to get some.

Recommendations

  1. Given the issues reported with the similar product 'Validator', focus heavily on a bug-free and user-friendly experience from day one. Address issues like crashes, slow loading times, and unclear feedback during processing, as these were major pain points for early users of a similar tool. Prioritize a smooth onboarding process.
  2. Since the business model may fit the freemium archetype, identify the core features that users find most valuable in the free version. These could be basic validation checks or limited idea monitoring. Understand what makes the tool 'sticky' for these users.
  3. Develop premium features that cater to power users or teams. This could include advanced analytics, detailed competitor research, plagiarism detection, or collaboration tools. Focus on features that provide significant added value for those who are serious about protecting their ideas.
  4. Consider offering team plans or enterprise solutions with features tailored to collaborative idea validation and intellectual property protection. This might involve secure storage, version control, and access controls for sensitive ideas.
  5. Explore offering personalized consulting or expert reviews of ideas as a premium service. This could involve connecting users with industry experts or providing in-depth analysis of market potential and competitive landscape. You could also consider 'insurance' product to protect ideas if they are stolen after being validated.
  6. Implement A/B testing on different pricing models and feature sets with small groups of users to determine the optimal balance between free and paid offerings. Pay close attention to conversion rates and customer feedback to refine your pricing strategy.
  7. In the validation process, you could include a confidence score or rating that indicates how likely the idea is to succeed based on your analysis. This offers users a quick and easy way to assess their idea's potential. This needs to be transparent and explainable to gain user trust.
  8. Address concerns about the privacy of ideas by implementing robust security measures and clearly communicating your privacy policy. Build trust by being transparent about how you protect user data and intellectual property. You might be able to use differential privacy to share popular ideas, without revealing them.

Questions

  1. Given the sensitivity of ideas and the potential for theft, how will you ensure the security and confidentiality of user data and intellectual property? What specific security measures will you implement to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure?
  2. What specific criteria or metrics will your platform use to assess the viability and potential of an idea? How will you ensure that your validation process is objective, unbiased, and reliable?
  3. Considering the potential for 'false positives' or 'false negatives' in your idea validation process, how will you mitigate the risk of misleading users and potentially discouraging them from pursuing promising ideas?

Your are here

Your idea, a platform to validate ideas and detect potential theft, falls into the Freemium category. This means people are generally interested in using such a tool, but convincing them to pay for it can be challenging. Given that we only found one similar product, this suggests there may be a niche but relatively unexplored market. However, this also means we have low confidence in our assessment of the idea. That similar product received high engagement (29 comments) which indicates interest. Given the lack of use/buy data, it will be critical to perform user testing to get some.

Recommendations

  1. Given the issues reported with the similar product 'Validator', focus heavily on a bug-free and user-friendly experience from day one. Address issues like crashes, slow loading times, and unclear feedback during processing, as these were major pain points for early users of a similar tool. Prioritize a smooth onboarding process.
  2. Since the business model may fit the freemium archetype, identify the core features that users find most valuable in the free version. These could be basic validation checks or limited idea monitoring. Understand what makes the tool 'sticky' for these users.
  3. Develop premium features that cater to power users or teams. This could include advanced analytics, detailed competitor research, plagiarism detection, or collaboration tools. Focus on features that provide significant added value for those who are serious about protecting their ideas.
  4. Consider offering team plans or enterprise solutions with features tailored to collaborative idea validation and intellectual property protection. This might involve secure storage, version control, and access controls for sensitive ideas.
  5. Explore offering personalized consulting or expert reviews of ideas as a premium service. This could involve connecting users with industry experts or providing in-depth analysis of market potential and competitive landscape. You could also consider 'insurance' product to protect ideas if they are stolen after being validated.
  6. Implement A/B testing on different pricing models and feature sets with small groups of users to determine the optimal balance between free and paid offerings. Pay close attention to conversion rates and customer feedback to refine your pricing strategy.
  7. In the validation process, you could include a confidence score or rating that indicates how likely the idea is to succeed based on your analysis. This offers users a quick and easy way to assess their idea's potential. This needs to be transparent and explainable to gain user trust.
  8. Address concerns about the privacy of ideas by implementing robust security measures and clearly communicating your privacy policy. Build trust by being transparent about how you protect user data and intellectual property. You might be able to use differential privacy to share popular ideas, without revealing them.

Questions

  1. Given the sensitivity of ideas and the potential for theft, how will you ensure the security and confidentiality of user data and intellectual property? What specific security measures will you implement to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure?
  2. What specific criteria or metrics will your platform use to assess the viability and potential of an idea? How will you ensure that your validation process is objective, unbiased, and reliable?
  3. Considering the potential for 'false positives' or 'false negatives' in your idea validation process, how will you mitigate the risk of misleading users and potentially discouraging them from pursuing promising ideas?

  • Confidence: Low
    • Number of similar products: 1
  • Engagement: High
    • Average number of comments: 29
  • Net use signal: 9.3%
    • Positive use signal: 18.6%
    • Negative use signal: 9.3%
  • Net buy signal: -6.2%
    • Positive buy signal: 0.0%
    • Negative buy signal: 6.2%

This chart summarizes all the similar products we found for your idea in a single plot.

The x-axis represents the overall feedback each product received. This is calculated from the net use and buy signals that were expressed in the comments. The maximum is +1, which means all comments (across all similar products) were positive, expressed a willingness to use & buy said product. The minimum is -1 and it means the exact opposite.

The y-axis captures the strength of the signal, i.e. how many people commented and how does this rank against other products in this category. The maximum is +1, which means these products were the most liked, upvoted and talked about launches recently. The minimum is 0, meaning zero engagement or feedback was received.

The sizes of the product dots are determined by the relevance to your idea, where 10 is the maximum.

Your idea is the big blueish dot, which should lie somewhere in the polygon defined by these products. It can be off-center because we use custom weighting to summarize these metrics.

Similar products

Relevance

Validator - Research and validate you micro saas ideas fast as Cheetah

Do competitor and trend research easily and fast. Just describe your idea and let the platform do the magic 🪄. The platform researching for competitors in Product hunt so its fit great small indie hackers.

The Product Hunt launch received mixed feedback. Many users congratulated the team and expressed excitement for the tool's potential to aid indie hackers with competitor research and idea validation. Several users reported issues with the app's functionality, including crashes, errors, slow processing times, and a lack of feedback during loading. Readability issues with the score display, Firebase errors, and first-time user experience flaws (missing title, favicon) were also noted. Suggestions for improvement included headline changes, using 'Difficulty' instead of 'Hardness', and clarifying waiting times.

Users reported numerous issues with the Product Hunt launch. Many experienced crashes, loading problems, and a generally slow, error-prone experience, often without helpful feedback. The app's presentation suffered from typos, unreadable text (white on white), and poor English. Several usability issues were cited, including a missing title, favicon, broken back button, premature registration prompt, and difficulty locating the YouTube link. Concerns arose regarding the privacy of ideas and the unexpected "Vite + React" in the title. Functionality problems included missing insights, no displayed results, social sign-in failures, and a potential bug in a chart.


Avatar
357
29
10.3%
-6.9%
29
357
20.7%
Top