How Opportunity Scoring Works
The score is a weighted composite, and the weights are published. You should be able to disagree with our ranking on principle rather than because you cannot see how it was produced.
Last updated 2026-08-17
The seven dimensions
| Dimension | Weight |
|---|---|
| Pain severity | 0.18 |
| Competition gap | 0.18 |
| Market size | 0.15 |
| Monetisation clarity | 0.14 |
| Build feasibility | 0.13 |
| Evidence strength | 0.12 |
| Distribution ease | 0.10 |
Evidence strength is different
Six of the seven dimensions are judged by the model reading the evidence. Evidence strength is not — it is computed from how many independent pain points back the cluster and how many distinct platforms they came from.
Cross-source breadth is weighted more heavily than raw volume. Forty complaints on one forum can be an artefact of that community; ten complaints spread across four platforms almost never are.
How to read a score
- 75 and above is strong, 55–74 is promising, below 55 is speculative
- Always check evidence strength before trusting a high composite
- A high competition gap with a low market size usually means a real but small niche — which may be exactly what you want
What the score is not
It is not a prediction. It ranks opportunities relative to each other given what we could find, and nothing more. Two ideas scoring 80 are not equally likely to succeed; they are equally worth investigating.