Free tool · Evidence, not opinions
Problem Gap Finder
Name a market and see the recurring problems real people hit that today's tools don't solve well. We search public community discussions, cluster them into workflow-level gaps, and rank each one by verified evidence — a demand signal, not a success predictor.
What a result looks like
An illustrative example — your gaps are built live from the evidence your market matches.
“Project management for freelance video editors”
- Gap: tracking client revisions across email, WeTransfer and Frame.io with no single source of truth
- Why unresolved: generic PM tools assume text tasks, not timestamped video notes
- Workaround today: a spreadsheet per client, copy-pasting notes by hand
How the finder works
- 1.We interpret your market into its audience, workflows, and the language people use.
- 2.We search real public discussions for the problems people describe in that space.
- 3.Matches are clustered into workflow-level gaps and ranked by a deterministic score; every count and quote is verified against stored evidence.
- 4.You get the ranked gaps, the workarounds people use, and honest risks. If the evidence is thin, we say so — and point you to related markets.
Frequently asked questions
- How does the Problem Gap Finder work?
You name a market — an industry, niche, role, or workflow. We search a corpus of real public community discussions for the problems people describe in that space, group them into workflow-level clusters, and rank each cluster as a 'gap'. Every count — people, discussions, communities, quotes — is verified against stored evidence before you see it. Nothing is invented to make a gap look bigger.
- What makes a gap rank highly?
We score three things separately, so high evidence volume can't masquerade as a sure thing. Evidence strength measures how many people raise it, how often, over how long, and across how many communities. Problem coherence measures whether the discussions are really one workflow-level problem rather than a broad mix. Market relevance measures how closely it matches the audience you asked about. An opportunity is only called 'high confidence' when both evidence and coherence are high — a busy but scattered market instead gets a 'needs narrowing' verdict with directions to choose from.
- Is a gap a guarantee of a good business?
No. It tells you real people repeatedly hit a problem that current tools don't solve well — a demand signal, not a success predictor. Volume of complaints is not the same as willingness to pay, and a strong gap still leaves pricing, distribution, and execution to you.
- Where does the evidence come from?
From public discussions in real communities (primarily Reddit) that Problem Signal continuously analyses — the unfiltered places where people describe what's broken in their work and what they wish existed. Each gap card links an excerpt back to its source so you can verify it yourself.
- What do I see for free, and what does Pro add?
Free (no sign-up) gives you the whole decision layer: the 30-second market verdict, up to three coherent opportunity directions with their evidence/coherence/market-fit bands, verified headline counts, one grounded excerpt and one risk per opportunity, a concrete recommended next move, and a shareable report link that opens directly for whoever you send it to. Pro adds depth and breadth: every qualified opportunity, each one's full score breakdown, the market-wide workaround categories, and the whole idea library. We gate depth and repeated research — never the basic conclusion.
- What if you can't find enough evidence for my market?
We tell you honestly rather than inventing gaps — and we point you to the closest markets our corpus does cover, plus suggestions to narrow or broaden your wording. Little matching discussion doesn't mean there are no unmet needs; it may be described differently or in communities we haven't analysed yet.