Free tool · Evidence, not opinions
Startup Idea Validator
Paste your idea and see whether real people already talk about the problem behind it. We search public community discussions for matching complaints and requests, then show you verified counts, recurring themes, and honest risks — a demand signal, not a success predictor.
What a result looks like
An illustrative example — your report is built live from the evidence your idea matches.
“A tool for freelance web designers that collects client feedback from email, Slack and Google Docs into one prioritized revision list.”
- Interpreted problem
- Client feedback arrives across several channels and gets lost, so revisions are missed and rework piles up.
- Target audience
- Freelance web designers juggling several concurrent clients.
- Recurring theme: Feedback scattered across channels gets lost — “clients send revisions in three different places and I always miss one”.
- Workaround today: Manually copy-pasting comments into a spreadsheet or Trello board.
- Risk / assumption to test: Most complaints come from freelancers with several concurrent clients — solo hobbyists may not feel the pain enough to pay.
- Recommended next step: Interview five freelancers who juggle multiple clients to confirm the missed-revision pain is worth paying to remove.
How the check works
- 1.We interpret your idea into the underlying problem, customer, and workflow.
- 2.We search real public discussions for people describing that problem in their own words.
- 3.Matches are grouped into recurring themes; every count and quote is verified against stored evidence — nothing is made up.
- 4.You get an evidence level, verified metrics, risks, and the assumptions to test next. If the evidence is thin, we say so.
Frequently asked questions
- How does the Startup Idea Validator work?
We interpret your idea, then search a corpus of real public community discussions for people describing the problem behind it. Matching discussions are grouped into recurring themes, and every count — people, discussions, communities, quotes — is verified against stored evidence before you see it. Nothing is invented to make the result look better.
- What do problem signal and commercial evidence mean?
We deliberately split the result into two dimensions. Problem signal (strong / moderate / limited / insufficient) is a rule-based read of how much matching discussion exists — how many people, how many discussions, how often it recurs. Commercial evidence (strong / emerging / weak / not yet found) is separate: it only reflects verified buying intent, switching intent, or dissatisfaction with an existing paid product. A strong problem signal with no commercial evidence means people clearly have the problem — it does not mean they've shown they'll pay for a solution.
- Is this a prediction that my idea will succeed?
No. Problem signal tells you whether real people are already talking about the problem — a demand signal, not a success predictor. Commercial evidence tells you whether any of them have shown buying or switching intent. Neither is a guarantee: volume of complaints is not the same as willingness to pay, and a strong result on both still leaves pricing, distribution, and execution to you. A 0–100 score is also shown as a secondary diagnostic with a full breakdown — it measures evidence found in public discussions, not a probability of success.
- 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. Excerpts link back to their source so you can verify them yourself.
- What do I see for free, and what does Pro add?
Free (no sign-up) gives you the verdict, verified metrics, the top problem themes, key risks, and refinement guidance. Signing up (free) saves your results and raises your limits. Pro unlocks the full report: every theme, the workarounds people use today, explicitly requested capabilities, and the complete customer-discovery plan.
- Why might I get an “insufficient evidence” result?
It means we found little matching discussion in our current corpus — not that the problem isn't real. It may be described in different words, discussed in communities we haven't analysed yet, or your idea may be phrased as a solution rather than a problem. The result includes concrete guidance for sharpening the input; we never pad a weak result to look positive.