Adoptability score
Ten axes, equal weight, scored 0-10. The composite is what shows on every product page. Here's what each axis actually measures.
The 10 axes
How severe is the problem this product solves? Is the buyer losing money, time, or sleep over it today?
9-10: dollar-cost pain, board-room visibility · 6-8: weekly frustration · 1-5: nice-to-have
Can we name the buyer specifically? Role, team size, current tools, signing authority?
9-10: named role + team size + budget signal · 6-8: clear role, fuzzy team · 1-5: mushy ICP
How fast can a competent solo dev or small team ship a real MVP?
9-10: under 4 weeks · 6-8: 4-12 weeks · 1-5: 3+ months
How findable is the buyer? Is there a channel where they congregate that doesn't require paid ads to win?
9-10: known channel, direct outbound works · 6-8: channel exists but noisy · 1-5: cold-start, needs ads or a network
How crowded is the space? Higher score = more room for a new entrant.
9-10: real gap or under-served vertical · 6-8: some competition, defensible niche · 1-5: well-funded incumbents own it
How natural is it to upsell installation, integration, or done-for-you operation on top of the product?
9-10: complex enough to warrant service · 6-8: medium · 1-5: pure self-serve
Are the financial and market claims defensible, or do they need validation before marketing?
9-10: anchored in public data or interviews · 6-8: reasonable inference · 1-5: speculative
How tight is the existing landing page? Headline, ICP, pricing, CTA, social proof?
9-10: ships-as-is · 6-8: solid foundation, needs polish · 1-5: rebuild from scratch
Year-1 take-home (Fermi math) at a realistic price-and-conversion mix. Labeled as estimate, not guarantee.
9-10: $200k+ year-1 take-home plausible · 6-8: $50-200k · 1-5: under $50k or too thin
Is this idea differentiable beyond "AI version of X"? Does it have a real wedge?
9-10: workflow-specific or vertical wedge · 6-8: angle on a generic space · 1-5: undifferentiated
How to read a composite score
A composite of 80+ usually means at least 4 axes are 9-10 and zero are below 5. A composite of 65-79 is the meat of the catalog: real ideas with real trade-offs. Below 65 we usually flag in the catalog as a sketch or rough idea.
The trust-signal block on every product page shows the top 3 strongest axes and the top 2 axes to know about. Read both before unlocking.
Real products at each tier
What scores look like across the live catalog of 770 products today. Click any to see the per-axis breakdown.
bookkeeper-ai at 80. Pain intensity 8, buyer clarity 10, distribution-easy 10, market-open 10, credibility 10, uniqueness 9. Drops on financial-upside (Fermi take-home of about $6k year-1 caps the axis at 1). Honest read: clear pain, clean buyer, but the math is thin because ChatGPT does this for free at the consumer tier.
demand-gen-ai 79, roofing-ai 78, nurture-ai 78, win-loss-analysis-ai 77, dispatch-ai 77. Each has at least 7 axes at 7-10. Each has at least one axis flagging real risk (HubSpot competition for demand-gen-ai, EagleView competition for roofing-ai, etc.). These are the "real ideas worth a real Phase A" tier.
Most of the catalog lives here. Solid hypotheses with named buyers and a path to revenue, but at least one axis (often financial-upside or market-saturation) keeps them from a top score. This is where an operator with existing distribution in the named vertical can do the best work: the structural research is solid, the upside is real, and the score is honest about the risks.
Ideas that the studio surfaced from market signal but did not develop fully. Buyer is fuzzier, financial model is thinner, or the distribution path is unclear. Worth reading for category awareness, less worth a Phase A engagement.
The skeptic questions about scoring, answered straight
Three questions we get from operators looking at the scores. Here are the honest answers.
"Isn't this just a made-up number?"
Every axis is heuristic, yes. We make no claim that an 80-point product is exactly 80/100 likely to succeed. The score's job is comparative, not absolute: a 78 is meaningfully easier to adopt than a 62 across most of the axes that matter. The formula is mechanical and lives in adoptability-score.py on our cron schedule (re-runs every 4 hours), so the comparison stays consistent even as new products land.
"What if my idea scores 60? Is it dead?"
No. A 60 just means at least 2 axes are weak and need work before launch. Most 60-tier ideas have a known buyer but a hard distribution path, or have clear pain but a low financial ceiling. The fix is usually narrower ICP plus higher pricing. Read the per-axis breakdown on the product page to see which axes are dragging, then decide if those are tractable for you specifically. If you have an existing audience in the named ICP, a 60 in this catalog can become an 80 in your hands.
"Why is financial-upside so often low even on strong ideas?"
Because Fermi math against realistic year-1 conversion rates rarely produces $200k year-1 take-home. The 9-10 band on financial-upside is rare on purpose. Most operator launches in this catalog target $50-150k year-1 ARR with break-even take-home, then scale year-2 if the offer holds. Score it honestly, do not penalize yourself for not building a unicorn.
Why we're transparent about this
Most "AI idea catalogs" do not explain their scoring at all. Ours is mechanical: axes are loaded from /factory/adoptability.json for every product, the score is the equal-weighted average, and the formulas do not change product-to-product. Every 4 hours, a cron job re-scores the whole catalog so the numbers stay current as products evolve.
If you spot an axis that is off, email wes@wishdeal.com with the slug and the axis. We update the scoring rubric and the model improves for everyone.
Browse 770 ideas by Adoptability →