Sourced research
Every claim links to where we found it, and the case against your idea gets its own section instead of being folded into a summary.
Real conversations
Answers from people who live the problem, in the communities where they already talk about it unprompted.
A score, argued
The confirmation rate, the risk factors, and every raw response stay visible. Never a bare number.
Conversations that matter
Anyone can go and ask twenty people whether they like an idea. The answers come back warm, agreeable, and worth nothing. What separates a signal you can build on from one that flatters you is who you asked, how you asked, and which answers you let count.
Niche expertise
We find where your people already gather, down to the specific communities and threads where they describe this problem without being asked. Your own network will be kind to you. Strangers who have the problem will not.
Questions that do not lead
Questions are written from your research and worded so they cannot fish for the answer you are hoping for. A founder writing their own questions almost always writes them to win.
Every answer screened
Generic, AI-written, and low-effort responses are rejected before they reach your score, whichever way they answered. Rejecting only the negative ones would flatter every number on the page.
What you get
More than a verdict
A validation round produces a decision, and everything you need to argue with it. All of this comes with the free account.
Research that names names
The products already solving this and the gap they leave, what people do instead today, and the questions search could not settle.
The case against, kept separate
The strongest evidence that your idea is wrong sits in its own section, where it cannot be quietly absorbed into a positive summary.
Your idea, sharpened
Concrete rewrites of your problem statement, your audience, and your value proposition. Accept one and it rewrites the idea. Edit or reject the rest.
Where your people are
Named communities with real threads to start from, plus drafted posts and replies that contribute to the conversation rather than pitching in it.
A verdict you can check
A score, the reasoning behind it, the risk factors that qualify it, and every raw response that fed it. The threshold is enforced in code, so nobody can talk it upward.
Run it again, and again
Sharpen the idea and start another round as many times as you need. Every past version stays readable, including the rounds that did not pass.
Who it is for
Whether you have built anything yet or not
You have an idea
Nothing built yet
The cheapest moment to find out a problem is not real is before you have written a line of code for it.
- Find out whether anyone has this problem
- See who already solves it, and the gap they leave
- Get the questions written, and a link to send
You have already built
An MVP, or users
Test the one part you are unsure about rather than the whole product, and get a sharper answer for it.
- Validate a single feature, not the entire roadmap
- We read your existing product page for context
- Rework and run it again as many rounds as you need
A signal, not a guarantee
A strong score means the evidence so far points to a real problem that people will talk about and pay to solve. It cannot promise the business will work, and a weak one is not a verdict on you. It is a reason to sharpen the idea before you spend months on it.
What we refuse to doStart with the idea you already have
Type it here and we will take it from there. Nothing is lost if you stop partway.
Or create an account first.