Privacy Analytics

Scored on the evidence below, against CENTS as we've adapted it plus a Buffett-style moat reading of every rival — the same referee for every idea, including the ones we generate ourselves. The verdict follows the arithmetic: we never relabel a score to make it read better, and the weakest commandment is always named. The exact rubric stays in-house so the scale can't be written for.

At $14/mo (assumed category price), you need 5,953 subscribers for a $1M/yr pace.

Nearest tracked rivals on that curve:

• Plausible Analytics — Open-source, beloved brand, multi-million ARR; owns the 'privacy GA alternative' search term and community.
• Fathom Analytics — Established indie incumbent with EU isolation/ownership story, strong brand loyalty and years of content moat.
• Matomo / Umami (self-hosted open source) — Free forever tier destroys pricing floor; anyone technical self-hosts instead of subscribing.

• Corpus evidence is effectively absent: only 1 similar product tracked, and it's an unrelated LLM Gateway at $58k MRR — no read-through to analytics.
• No Reddit demand signals found for these keywords; no funded companies tracked in-space by this scan.
• External market knowledge (not this corpus) shows Plausible and Fathom each at multi-million ARR — demand is real but already captured.
• GDPR/ePrivacy enforcement and cookie-banner fatigue create ongoing budget for cookieless analytics, but it's a solved need.

• Commodity feature set: pageviews, referrers, cookieless script — cloneable in a weekend, differentiated by brand only.
• Free substitutes (Cloudflare Web Analytics, Umami, GA4) set willingness-to-pay near zero for small sites.
• Price ceiling ~$9-19/mo means you need thousands of customers before it's a business.
• Ad blockers and browser tracking-prevention can suppress your script, degrading the core data product.

• Browser vendors / ad-block lists — One filter-list addition blocks your tracking script domain, breaking data collection for a large share of visitors.
• Google Analytics itself — A genuinely cookieless, consent-free GA tier would erase the category's reason to exist for most site owners.
• EU regulators / DPA guidance — A ruling that your specific measurement method still needs consent removes the 'no cookie banner' selling point overnight.

• Cannot tell whether you have an existing audience or distribution channel, which is the only real differentiator here.
• Corpus tracked zero true comparables, so no verified MRR benchmark for this specific category was available.
• Cannot assess whether a specific regulated vertical (health, gov, finance) is underserved enough to pay a premium.

Scores judge the market and business model — not your ability to execute. Verified MRR = independently tracked revenue; reviews/upvotes = platform-reported. Judged 2026-08-04.

Skip the generic GA-alternative fight; sell compliance evidence — signed DPA, EU-only hosting, auditor-ready data-processing reports — to regulated EU teams who buy paperwork, not pageview charts.

Cheapest next step: Spend two days cold-emailing 25 EU agencies/DPOs asking what their auditor demanded from their analytics vendor; if answers are 'nothing special', drop the idea.

Business-model variations of this idea, engineered to beat 6.0 — different vertical, audience, model, or wedge. Same harsh scale. Pro feature.

This one got a skip. Every morning the engine files one mined gap that could be a yes — idea, score, and what holds it back, free at 7am AEST. Unedited, like this verdict.

Free forever · one email a day · unsubscribe in one click.

Weekly re-scan against the live corpus. If the market moves this ShipScore by a point, or flips the verdict, you hear about it. Free while we're small.