Opportunities › Blind search engine comparison testing › Proposed app
Blindfold
Compare search engines blind: same layout, no logos, rate then reveal.
- Score
- 13
- confidence 41
- Evidence
- 4
- items on the page
- Rivals
- 3
- named in sources
- First version
- 35 d
- estimate
- Type
- Mobile app
- PWA: installs on iPhone and Android
- Market since
- 2008
- Mature market · AI estimate
ScreensConcept
Mobile app: Users quickly compare search results and rate them on demand, a casual task done in short sessions on the go. Sample screens on a phone, in the proposed brand. Their numbers are sample data.
Test 14 of 20
- Set A · result 1Good
- Set A · result 2Okay
- Set B · result 1Poor
- Set B · result 2Good
- Set C · result 1Not rated
About this appAI proposal
Blindfold runs your query on several search engines at once and shows the results in one identical layout with no logos, no branding and no engine-specific styling. You mark each result good or poor, then the engine names are revealed.
It is made for people thinking of leaving Google, such as privacy-minded users weighing DuckDuckGo or Kagi. Instead of relying on habit or a hunch, you test on your own real searches and see which engine did best for you.
Over weeks your ratings build a personal scoreboard by query type: coding, shopping, news, local and more. Nothing is guessed about other users; the scores are only your own blind judgements.
- Tagline
- Judge the results. Not the logo.
- Voice
- NeutralPlainCurious
- Why this name
- Blindfold is the test itself: engines are covered until you have judged. Plain, pronounceable and says what happens.
In the first version
Members say which features they would use. It tells PWAS what people want; it changes no score.
Unbranded side-by-side results
Results from each engine are normalised into one layout. Logos, ads labels, favicons and engine styling are removed so only content remains.
No member yet
Shuffled order
Engine positions are randomised for every query so that you cannot learn which column belongs to which engine.
No member yet
Quick ratings
Mark each result or each whole set as good, okay or poor with one tap. Built to be done in seconds on a phone.
No member yet
Reveal and scoreboard
After rating, see which engine produced which results and how your scores add up across all your tests.
No member yet
Brand identityAI proposal
Check the name against trademark registers before using it.
Palette
#F6F1E7Paper · surface#1F2A30Ink · text#14606BTeal Deep · primary#E08A1EAmber · accent#B5482FClay · data, alerts#D8DED9Mist · borders
Typography
Aa
Blindfold
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 0123456789
PricingAI proposal
Kagi's verified pricing page lists two paid plans from $4 to $12 a month by usage. Tiers here sit at or below that range as a starting point to test; no other competitor prices are in the material.
Free
Free
- 10 blind comparisons a month
- Two engines per test
- Reveal and basic scoreboard
Plus
$5 a month
- Unlimited comparisons
- Up to four engines per test
- Scores by query type
- Shareable results card
Team
$12 a month
- Everything in Plus
- Shared query sets
- Combined team scoreboard
- CSV export
Would you pay Plus · $5 a month?
Your answer tells PWAS which prices people accept. It changes no score.
No answers yet.
What it could be worthEstimate
What a software business making this much sells for today, from real deals. Pick a monthly revenue.
If it makes
Worth about
$194,000
Sale range $132,000 to $263,000
$120,000 a year in revenue
From 87 software businesses listed and sold on Empire Flippers in the last year, revenue vetted by the broker: they sell for about 19× their monthly revenue, most between 13× and 26×.
Measured on profit, the middle deal is 32× monthly net profit: about 2.7 years of profit.
An estimate, not an offer or financial advice. A real price depends on profit, growth, churn, how much of the work is the owner's, and the buyer.
How it would growAI proposal
How the product would reach new customers through its own use, and how the first ones would be found. A plan to test, not a result.
- Built-in loop
- Shared outputs. After a test, users can publish a results card showing their blind scores per engine and query type. Links to a shared page invite others to run the same test on their own searches.
- Do they become customers?
- Viewers can run their own test from the shared page, which could convert them, but this is untested. Test whether recipients start a test of their own and whether a share of them pay.
- First customers
- Privacy-conscious developers and tech workers who are trialling a paid or privacy search engine and want proof before committing.
- Where to reach them
- Hacker News: Post a Show HN with a live blind test where readers rate results on one query and see the reveal.
- Privacy communities: Share the tool in privacy-focused forums and subreddits where members discuss moving off Google.
- Search engine user forums: Offer the test to users of paid alternatives who want to check they chose well.
- First milestone
- 500 completed blind tests and 25 paying subscribers within 60 days of launch, with at least 5 shared results cards opened by new users.
Why people already pay for this
- Public claimUsers cannot objectively evaluate search engine quality due to UI and branding bias
- Public claimThere is demand for an objective search engine comparison tool
- Public claimBlind A/B testing would add credibility for premium search engines
- VerifiedKagi's pricing page lists 2 paid plans, from $4 to $12 by usage, plus prices on request for larger customers
Tech stack
Every proposal builds on the same PWA base, installable from the browser on any phone or computer. Dashed boxes are what this app adds.
- AppNext.js and TypeScript
- PWAManifest and service worker
- UITailwind CSS
- Data and authSupabase Postgres
- PaymentsStripe
- EmailResend
- HostingVercel
- This app · Search data accessOfficial search APIs or licensed result feedsNeeded to fetch results from several engines legally and reliably, since scraping may be blocked or banned.
- This app · Result normaliserServer-side parser to one neutral formatStrips branding and formatting so engines cannot be identified from layout.
RisksAI inference
- PlatformSearch engines may block automated queries or forbid scraping in their terms. Access may depend on official APIs, which can be costly, limited or unavailable for some engines.
- TechnicalNormalising different result formats (snippets, answer boxes, images) into one layout may leave hints that reveal the engine and weaken the blind test.
- CommercialUsers may run a handful of tests, pick an engine and cancel, so retention for a subscription could be weak.
- DataQueries are personal. Storing or licensing them raises privacy concerns for an audience that is privacy-conscious; data licensing may conflict with the product's trust.
- CommercialRatings from a small, self-selected group may not be reliable enough to claim which engine is best; results should be presented as personal.
Everything marked AI proposal or AI inference was written by a model from the evidence on the opportunity page. The proposed name must be checked against trademark registers before it is used.