Who it's for
One evidence engine, many ways to use the signal.
Every idea on the board is backed by cited evidence and scored on demand, monetization, buildability and openness. What you do with that signal depends on who you are.
Indie Hackers
You can build anything. But what's worth building?
Shipping was never your bottleneck — picking the right thing is. Instead of betting three months on a 2 a.m. hunch, start from product opportunities discovered in real market signals, each scored 0–100 with citations you can open before you write a line of code.
For indie hackers →Product Managers
Roadmap bets deserve evidence, not opinions.
Every planning cycle turns into a battle of opinions — the loudest stakeholder wins, and the market gets a vote much too late. Walk in instead with scored opportunities backed by citations: real pain points from real users, monetization signals, and competitive openness you can defend line by line.
For product managers →Agencies
Stop reselling hours. Start shipping productized offerings.
Custom work doesn't compound — every engagement starts from zero. The agencies pulling ahead are packaging repeatable AI offerings for the verticals they already serve. These leaderboards show you what those offerings should be, scored for buildability and demand, with the evidence to sell them to clients.
For agencies →Investors
See the signal before the pitch deck exists.
By the time an opportunity is a pitch deck, the narrative has been polished and the price has moved. These leaderboards read the primary evidence — developer traction, research momentum, unmet demand in the wild — and score what could be built next, before anyone is raising for it.
For investors →Startup Founders
Runway is finite. Spend it on a market you can defend.
The expensive founder mistake is rarely the build — it's eighteen months spent on a market that never had a budget behind it. Start instead from opportunities where the pain, the buyer and the willingness to pay were each found and cited before you incorporate, so what you defend in the partner meeting is evidence rather than conviction.
For startup founders →Venture Studios
A studio lives or dies on the top of its funnel.
One good idea a year is a startup; a studio needs a stocked, comparable pipeline every quarter — and the expensive failure mode is falling in love with concept three while concept eleven never got looked at. Rolling top-100 boards across 44 domains give origination a standing input, and one shared formula turns killing a concept into a comparison instead of an argument.
For venture studios →Corporate Innovation Teams
The hard part isn't the idea. It's the committee.
Inside a large company, a good idea and a well-sourced idea are not the same object. Stage gates are lost to a single question — how do you know? — and a slide of assumptions has no answer to it. Every opportunity here arrives with its evidence attached: cited sources per dimension, an explicit cap where evidence was missing, and a confidence number you can present without overclaiming.
For corporate innovation teams →Fractional CTOs
Research once. Advise four clients.
Every engagement asks you the same two questions in a different vertical — is this worth building, and can this team build it — and assembling the answer from scratch each time is unbillable hours. Standing boards across 44 domains mean the market scan is already done when the call starts, and the Buildability pillar is the technical read you would otherwise write by hand.
For fractional CTOs →AI & ML Engineers
You can make the model work. Who pays for it?
The gap for an ML engineer is never the model. A working capability and a product someone buys are different achievements, and nothing in the training pipeline tells you which capability has a budget behind it. Monetization is 30% of every score here and can only be uncapped by evidence that someone already pays — so the boards are sorted by exactly the thing weekend projects keep missing.
For AI and ML engineers →Micro-SaaS Operators
Your scarcest asset isn't time. It's the next thing you agree to maintain.
Shipping product number two is easy; supporting it for four years is the actual decision. The operator's mistake is adding something with thin, seasonal or one-off demand and paying its support cost forever. Demand here is scored on how often the job recurs and what the current workaround costs, and gap durability asks whether the opening will still be there once you've built.
For micro-SaaS operators →Accelerators & Incubators
Ten mentors, ten opinions, one cohort with eight weeks left.
A program's hardest weeks are the ones where a founder has to pivot and every mentor points somewhere different. A shared, cited scoring formula turns that from a seniority contest into a comparison: the same four pillars applied to the current idea and to the alternatives, with the evidence behind each open in a tab the founder can read tonight.
For accelerators and incubators →Product Designers
You were handed a solution. You wanted the problem.
Design gets judged on the artifact and briefed on the answer — somebody else already decided what the problem was. Here the problem comes first and it comes cited: the actual complaints, the workarounds people built for themselves, how often the job recurs. That is the input for arguing a different solution, and the evidence a case study needs to be about judgement rather than screens.
For product designers →Growth Marketers
You can capture demand. You can't invent it.
Campaigns that fail quietly tend to fail for one reason: they were pointed at a market that wasn't already looking. The Demand pillar is built from what people wrote when the problem actually hurt — the complaints, the workarounds, the frequency — which is simultaneously a map of where demand exists and the copy deck for reaching it.
For growth marketers →Non-Technical Domain Experts
You know the problem cold. You just can't tell what's buildable.
Fifteen years in a field leaves you with a list of problems nobody has fixed and no way to judge which of them today's AI can actually fix, or what building one would cost. Buildability answers exactly that question — feasibility, data availability, time to MVP, regulatory risk — in plain scored terms, so you can talk to a developer already knowing which of your ideas is a project and which is a research program.
For domain experts →Angel Investors
No analyst, no associate, one hour before the call.
Angels get the same polished market claims a fund does and none of the research staff to test them. The practical need is narrow: between the deck landing and the call, is there independent evidence that this problem is real, recurring and already being paid for? Domain boards and their citations are that check — primary sources, already gathered and already scored.
For angel investors →No-Code Builders
The best idea you can't build is worth less than the second-best you can.
No-code moved the constraint rather than removing it: you can ship in a weekend, but only inside what your stack supports — and an opportunity that needs a custom model, a proprietary dataset or a compliance regime is a dead end no amount of enthusiasm fixes. Buildability scores those blockers explicitly, so you can filter for openings that fit the tools you actually have.
For no-code builders →Students & Career Switchers
Everyone's portfolio proves they can code. Yours should prove you can choose.
The tutorial project and the clone are indistinguishable across a thousand applications, because they answer a question nobody asked. A project chosen from cited evidence answers a different one: here is a real, recurring problem, here is why I picked it over the alternatives, here is who would pay for it. That is the story that survives an interview.
For students and career switchers →Not sure where you fit?
Start with your own idea — the free tier scores 5 ideas a month against the same evidence engine.