Sanskar Tiwari, a solo founder from Bangalore, has launched 30+ single-feature apps, 8 of which make money, for about $1M in lifetime revenue over 6 years with no employees. Almost every app lives inside an existing platform (Chrome extension or Google Workspace add-on). He validates with a buy button before building, and markets each app with its own YouTube channel plus fast, low-effort Instagram videos.
▶ 1:12His portfolio on a revenue dashboard: MagicSlides alone is $10k MRR and $729k lifetime. Most others earn $100-400 a month.
Scenes from the video
▶ 3:28The headline: $1M in total revenue over six years.▶ 3:00Daily revenue across the portfolio, Sep to Oct.▶ 10:20The full stack and what it costs per month: about $60.▶ 5:00Why his projects work: build on a platform, one feature, product knowledge.
Run a portfolio of tiny bets: 30 launches produced 8 earners. His first year on one product went nowhere.
Under the hood it's a one-hit portfolio: MagicSlides is ~$732k of ~$868k verified revenue and ~$9.8k of ~$11.3k MRR, and it's now listed for sale at $700k.
Installs don't equal revenue: SheetAI has 201K installs but 36 paying subscribers; MagicForm 106K installs and 8 subscribers. Distribution worked; conversion and support did not.
Revenue is lopsided: MagicSlides makes ~$10k of his MRR and $729k lifetime; most other apps sit at $100-400 MRR.
One app, one job. Too many features confuse you and the buyer about what is being sold.
Build inside a platform that already has users (Chrome Web Store, Google Workspace Marketplace) rather than from scratch.
Put a buy button up before building: a pre-order page promising delivery in 10 to 30 days, and start the timer at the first sale.
Solve your own problem only if people like you will pay. Students and freebie-seekers are the wrong target.
Give each app its own YouTube channel. Search-driven tutorial videos keep selling for years (SheetAI reached $2k+ MRR from YouTube alone).
Treat short-form content as cheap experiments: 10 phone-recorded Instagram videos in an hour, then double down on what lands.
Lifetime deals on AppSumo can replace a salary fast. Two launches each made a month's salary within two days.
His whole stack costs about $60/month: Next.js, Cloudflare and Apps Script are free, Supabase is $25 and Resend $35.
Do the claims hold up?
We checked what he says against store listings, revenue trackers, reviews and posts around the web.
About page claims '$1M+' bootstrapped. TrustMRR verifies $868,527 across 9 startups (Nov 2026). The roughly $130k gap would have to come from AppSumo, Workspace/other payments and the 2026 courses, and none of that is verified. Six years fits his timeline, with paid products starting in 2020. source
≈ Plausible
First 2 years $0
Free-course lesson title 'first year online = ₹0'. MarksPlus (2017) earned nothing, and he says he was 'too shy to charge' while making YouTube tutorials. His first sale was $7. He says one year, not two. source
✓ Confirmed
~$856k through Stripe
TrustMRR (Stripe-verified) now shows $868,527 total; the dashboard in the video adds up to about $866k. The small difference fits the dates. Stripe verification is confirmed for the MagicSlides listing. source
? Unverified
$85k+ through AppSumo lifetime deals
AppSumo deals found: Blurweb App ($17-$51, 158 reviews, 4.58), Blurweb Plus Exclusive (158), SendSimple (33 reviews, sold out); QuickPresent and EpicTexting pages exist but did not load. AppSumo's MagicForm deal belongs to another company (Will Brown). He gives no AppSumo total anywhere; in his talk he says '$10k just through lifetime deals' (ambiguous), and he guesses AppSumo takes about 30%. source
? Unverified
~1,000 paying customers a month
No source states this. TrustMRR shows 747 active MagicSlides subscriptions; his site counts 1,742 cumulative paid orders for info products. source
✕ Contradicted
0 employees
His homepage shows '0 Team Members', but his About page says the MagicSlides team peaked at '10 to 12 people, more than four of them writers' and that his brother was hired in 2023 and 'now ships features'. Zero may be true now, but it was not always. source
≈ Plausible
30+ products launched, 8 earning
The projects page is titled 'My 33 buy buttons' and lists 33 items, including IndianAppGuy.com and FlutterNerd. The same page's meta says 25+, and the About page says 25+ and 'maybe 5 really work'. TrustMRR lists 9 startups with lifetime revenue, one of them at $0 MRR. source
✓ Confirmed
Worked in a call centre and a sales job; skipped college
Starter Story (2021): skipped college after 12th, 4 months in a call centre, then 8 months selling life insurance by phone. The About page names 1Point1 Delhi, night shifts, ₹14,000/month, and says he told his father at 17 he wouldn't go to college. The talk mentions a Policybazaar call-centre sales job. One tension: an older eChai bio calls him a 'GitHub Campus Expert', a student programme. source
? Unverified
First two products each made a month's salary in two days via lifetime deals
No written source found. His salary was ₹14,000-16,000/month, so the bar is low and the claim is plausible. He did sell LTDs for early products such as BlurWeb, BlurScreen and QuickPresent (2020-22). source
✓ Confirmed
One Google Workspace app hit a million users
The MagicSlides Workspace Marketplace listing shows 1M+ installs, 4.7 from 1,484 reviews. These are installs, not active users. The Instagram post could not be loaded. He separately claims 2M+ MagicSlides users across platforms, and TrustMRR lists about 2.3M users. source
✓ Confirmed
TrustMRR verified-revenue profile
Founder profile exists: 9 startups, $868,527 total, $11,269 MRR, 4,844 X followers. MagicSlides is listed for sale, with an asking price of $700k in the page metadata. source
✓ Confirmed
Sells courses / info products
sanskartiwari.io/products sells courses (₹499-₹7,999 / $9-$89), books from ₹199, and tools. The About page says sales started July 2026 and calls courses a 'second engine'. His home page lists 1,742 paid orders. The 'Buy Buttons' talk is free. source
? Unverified
Criticism or skepticism online
No Reddit, HN or X threads doubting him were found. Product-level criticism exists: a Trustpilot review says MagicSlides offered credits for 5-star reviews, a Workspace reviewer alleges fake reviews, and LTD buyers report slow support. His own About page admits a 78% YoY drop in organic clicks and that 88% of revenue came from MagicSlides. source
Bottom line: The verified numbers hold up: about $869k is Stripe-verified on TrustMRR, but about 84% of it is MagicSlides ($732k). The other 8 apps together make only about $1.1-1.3k MRR, and MagicSlides is now shrinking and for sale, so the '30+ products' framing hides a one-hit portfolio. Since July 2026 he is turning the story into courses. The model worth copying is the cheap distribution: Google Workspace Marketplace add-ons plus AppSumo LTDs and selling again to past buyers. Launching many tools is not, on this evidence, what made the money.
Are the reviews real?
We read the review text on his store listings and looked for bursts, generic praise, repeat reviewers and incentives.
Verdict: Partly gamed, not wholesale fake. The strongest evidence: a MagicSlides user reports being offered credits for a 5-star Trustpilot review plus a screenshot, and two 5-star reviews from the same weeks mention credits; AskVideo's Trustpilot opens with a 5-star review under the founder's own name; his sites advertise ratings the stores don't show (4.5 vs 3.9, '4.9 from 158' borrowed from BlurWeb's AppSumo count). Store installs and verified AppSumo buyers look real, and negative reviews are not hidden. So the distribution is genuine, but the social proof on his own sites and on Trustpilot is inflated. Caveat: Google's store pages only showed the first 10 reviews each, so those verdicts are low confidence.
TrustScore 4.5 from 61 reviews (52 in the last 12 months) · Trustpilot histogram: 80% 5-star, 8% 4-star, 2% 3-star, 0% 2-star, 10% 1-star. The distribution is bimodal, with almost nothing in the middle.
likely manipulated · medium confidence
One user reports being asked for a 5-star review plus a screenshot in exchange for credits, which Trustpilot explicitly bans. Two 5-star reviews from the same weeks mention receiving free credits. Most of the 4.5 score comes from two bursts of short 5-star reviews from one-review accounts (Oct 23, 2025 and Jun-Jul 2026), including people who had not used the product yet. The genuine-looking 1-star reviews are visible and get replies, but the 5-star share looks inflated.
Show all 8 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: There are two clear bursts. (1) Oct 23, 2025: 7 reviews (Tarun S, Chirag P, Abdulrhman A, Priyansh S, Harikishore K, Subash, Rahul C) were all posted the same day, mostly from India, with experience dates as far back as Sep 10 and Oct 2. That pattern looks like a batch collection drive, and the founder replied to each. (2) Jun 2 to Jul 11, 2026: about 25 mostly short 5-star reviews, including 3 on Jun 17 and 2 on Jun 20. The Jun 30, 2026 complaint about being asked for a 5-star screenshot in exchange for credits falls inside this burst, as do two 5-star reviews that mention credits (Jun 2, Jul 11). Before Oct 2025 there are only a few reviews (Mar 2025, Jul 2025).
⚠ suspicious · strong
Reported credits-for-5-star-review scheme
Yury U. (1 star, Jun 30, 2026): 'they ask me to leave a 5-star review and send them a screenshot,' then 'they will give me some of their ... credits'. This is a firsthand account of an incentivized, positive-only review request. Trustpilot bans incentivized reviews and requests like 'If you like us, please leave us a 5-star review.' source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
5-star reviews that mention receiving credits
Valery (FI, 5 stars, Jun 2, 2026), full text: 'I am looking forward to using Magicslides again after having received the credits.' Matt (US, 5 stars, Jul 11, 2026): 'They give out free credits !' Both fall in the same window as the credits-for-screenshot complaint. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Same-day batch of reviews with backdated experience dates
7 reviews were posted on Oct 23, 2025 (e.g. Rahul C. experience Sep 10, Harikishore K. experience Oct 2, both posted Oct 23), and the founder replied to each. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Burst of short, generic 5-star reviews from one-review accounts
June-July 2026 examples: 'overall good', 'great for ppt', 'Works great', 'Perfect good', 'Very amazing experience', 'Amazing experience!', 'Super platform for ppt'. Almost all come from accounts with only 1 review. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Reviews from people who had not used the product yet, or that name the founder
Vincent A. (5 stars, Jun 18, 2026): 'My friend recommended this amazing tool ... I can't wait to start using it'. Chaitali W. (5 stars, Jul 8, 2026) praises 'MagicSlides Team & Sanskar Tiwari Sir' and says she 'can't wait to create my first slide'. Ravi N. (4 stars): 'Iam freshly used But my coleagues widly used'. One reviewer's entire text is 'Be detailed, specific and honest', which looks like a pasted prompt. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
All reviews labelled unprompted, though some were reportedly solicited
Trustpilot says the company 'hasn't invited customers recently', and every visible review is labelled 'Unprompted'. Reviews solicited off-platform, such as the screenshot-for-credits request, would therefore not carry an 'Invited' tag. source
✓ organic · moderate
Negative reviews are visible, specific and get replies
1-star reviews about not being able to download, not being able to cancel a subscription, advertised features not working, and checkout errors are all visible. The company replies to about 50% of negative reviews, and its replies are substantive (e.g. pointing to the subscription link). source
✓ organic · weak
Some detailed, plausible positive reviews
Tarun S. (4 stars) says it 'works decently' and asks for cybersecurity templates. Laki A. (4 stars) mentions support. Shreekanth N. describes the YouTube-to-slides feature. source
Reviews that look off
“they ask me to leave a 5-star review and send them a screenshot”
“looking forward to using Magicslides again after having received the credits.”
“They give out free credits !”
Reviews that look real
“HORRIBLE! They make a great looking presentation and then will not allow it to be downloaded.”
“The tool works decently for generating quick slide drafts”
“DODGY SERVICE WHERE YOU CANNOT CANCEL YOUR PAID SUBSCRIPTION ON YOUR OWN.”
Read: About 56 unique reviews read across ?page=1, ?page=2 and ?page=3, out of 61 total. The ?stars=1 filter was blocked (robots_disallowed).
BlurScreen site: 'Rated 4.9/5 by 158 customers' (hero) vs 'Rated 4.9/5 based on 20 customer reviews' (reviews section), with no link to any review platform. AskVideo Trustpilot: 3.4 from 5 (4x5-star, 1x1-star). · AskVideo: 80% 5-star, 20% 1-star. BlurScreen: no third-party listing linked.
likely manipulated · medium confidence
AskVideo's tiny Trustpilot profile opens with a 5-star review under the founder's own name, followed by thin one-review accounts, one of which describes features the product doesn't have. BlurScreen's site shows two contradictory '4.9' claims with no source, reuses the 158 count from BlurWeb's AppSumo page, and recycles BlurWeb reviewers as testimonials.
Show all 5 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: AskVideo: 5-star reviews on Oct 27, 2025 (by 'Sanskar T.'), Nov 28 and Nov 30, 2025, and Jan 17, 2026; 1-star on Oct 29, 2026.
⚠ suspicious · strong
Founder-named account reviewing own product
The first AskVideo review is by 'Sanskar T.' (IN, 2 reviews), 5 stars, 'All in on Chat with Video app'. The name matches the founder (AskVideo is his product per the earlier research). Trustpilot says that if you 'work for' or are 'closely associated with' a company, 'you shouldn't review it'. Chrome Web Store policy likewise bans rating your own extension 'using your own account or other accounts'. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
One-review accounts with generic or mismatched text
Three of the four 5-star reviews come from 1-review accounts. Syed K. A. left a title only, 'Great app for quick notes and revision'. Caleb I. says it 'generates images and videos perfectly', but AskVideo is a chat-with-video and summarising tool, not a generator. source
⚠ suspicious · strong
Conflicting site rating claims
The same blurscreen.app page claims '4.9/5 by 158 customers' and '4.9/5 based on 20 customer reviews', with no source link. 158 is exactly BlurWeb's AppSumo review count, where the rating is 4.58, not 4.9. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Testimonials recycled from BlurWeb reviewers
BlurScreen testimonials name Sue Brettell and Benedict Jamora. Sue B. (GB) and Benedict J. (PH) left 5-star reviews of BlurWeb, a different product, on Trustpilot in 2021-2022. Andy Ihnatko (MacBreak Weekly) is shown with no quote, and that could not be verified. source
✓ organic · weak
Uncensored negative review
A 1-star review (Oct 2026) remains. It appears to be about online courses and may be misplaced, but it does pull the score to 3.4. source
Reviews that look off
“Askvideo helps me summarise the videos get answers from them in seconds.”
“It generates images and videos perfectly”
“Great app for quick notes and revision.”
Reviews that look real
“some of the video's are 2-3 hrs long, it's really helpful”
Read: blurscreen.app home page read in full. AskVideo Trustpilot: all 5 reviews read.
4.7 from 1,483-1,484 ratings, 1M+ installs (listing updated Oct 17, 2026) · Not shown per review or as a histogram. By text, 3 of 11 visible reviews are clearly negative (2 of them allege fake reviews), 6 are positive, and 2 are non-reviews ('hello', 'OKE').
mixed / some inflation · low confidence
Only 10-11 of roughly 300 written reviews could be read, and none showed a star rating, so the 4.7 average cannot be checked. Among the visible reviews, two different names posted the identical text, one review reads like a product blurb, and two users accuse the app of fake reviews. The competitor baseline has similar duplicate text, though, so the evidence is suggestive, not conclusive.
Show all 7 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: The visible reviews run from Nov 2024 to Jul 2026. Two identical positive texts were posted in Nov and Dec 2024. The fake-review complaints are dated Mar 2025 and Dec 2025. There are too few to show bursts.
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Identical review text under two different names
Ujjwal V. (Dec 21, 2024) and Yioula M. (Nov 10, 2024) posted word-for-word the same text: 'What a great tool!! Using simple text, it generates in less than 2 minutes, full blown ppt...'. The baseline listing (SlidesAI) also has duplicate texts, so this is not unique to MagicSlides. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Users allege fake reviews
Samuel (Mar 5, 2025): 'a poor app with thousands of fake reviews'. Volodymyr D. (Dec 28, 2025): 'I just wonder where all those exciting reviews come from.' These are allegations, not proof. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Marketing-style text using an old product name
Taanya T. (Mar 27, 2025) opens like a product description: 'MagicSlides App – GPT for Slides is an AI-powered tool designed to help users create presentations effortlessly', and ends 'Highly Recommended!' source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Very short, empty positive reviews
'so good' (Camila A., May 2026), 'Looks great' (Osama A., Mar 2026), 'hello' (THIRD F., Jul 2026), 'OKE' (syamsurizal r., Jun 2026). Throwaway reviews like these are also common on large organic listings. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
High ratings-to-installs ratio compared with a competitor
MagicSlides has about 1.5 ratings per 1,000 installs (1,484 / 1M+). SlidesAI has about 0.16 (2,386 / 15M+), roughly 9x fewer. The '1M+' install figure is a floor, and in-app rating prompts could explain the gap legitimately. source
✓ organic · moderate
Detailed, specific reviews, including negative ones, remain visible
Jeff B. (Jan 30, 2026) says generation stalls at 'Generating outline' with no error. Steffi M. (Dec 2, 2024) gives balanced praise and asks for more templates and collaboration features. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Platform policy
Workspace Marketplace policy bans 'inflating product ratings, reviews, or install counts by illegitimate means' such as 'fraudulent or incentivized downloads, reviews and ratings'. The listing page notes that Google does not verify reviews. source
Reviews that look off
“What a great tool!! Using simple text, it generates in less than 2 minutes”
“MagicSlides App – GPT for Slides is an AI-powered tool designed to help users”
“hello”
Reviews that look real
“Useless. Does not work at all. I just wonder where all those exciting reviews come from.”
“unable to get any results using this extension in Google Slides”
“incredibly useful tool ... more templates and collaboration features”
Read: 11 distinct reviews read in two fetches (page and ?hl=en). The page serves only the first 10 of 258-333 written reviews and shows no per-review stars, no star histogram and no developer replies. Direct curl was blocked (proxy 403), so no further pages could be loaded.
Workspace: 4.5 from 34 ratings, 20 reviews, 78K+ installs. G2: 4.6 from 68. Site claims 4.9 from 158. · Unknown per review. By text: 9 of 10 visible Workspace reviews are positive. 1 is negative (Stuart M., Feb 2024, install fails with a '404 Bad Gateway').
mixed / some inflation · low confidence
The Workspace reviews I could read look like genuine business users, with one small launch-week cluster. The clear inflation is the site's '4.9 from 158 reviews', which no public listing supports (Workspace 4.5/34, G2 4.6/68). The G2 review texts could not be loaded, so whether those 68 were incentivized is unknown.
Show all 5 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Three reviews on Mar 16-21, 2022 (Nilayan G. and BL S. both on Mar 16, 2022; David B. on Mar 21, 2022). The rest are spread out: Apr 2022, Sep 2022, Aug 2023, Feb 2024, Sep 2024, Mar 2025, Apr 2026.
⚠ suspicious · strong
Site claim (4.9 from 158) exceeds every public source
Workspace shows 34 ratings at 4.5. G2 shows 68 at 4.6. Even combined (102), neither matches 158 or 4.9. The claim cannot be reproduced from any listing I found. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Small same-week cluster soon after launch
Two reviews on Mar 16, 2022 and one on Mar 21, 2022, all positive. Nilayan G. writes that 'early testing looks good', which suggests a launch-time tester. Three reviews in one week is too small to call a burst. source
✓ organic · moderate
Positives are specific and use-case driven
Reviewers mention concrete workflows: filtered order notifications (BL S.), a Zoom call to fix an issue (anonymous, Apr 2022), 18 months of use (Zack M., Mar 2025), and a plan change through support (Amit M., Apr 2026). They read like real B2B users. source
✓ organic · weak
No developer replies, including to the negative review
No owner replies are visible, so there is no pressure on reviewers to edit. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
G2 count is double the Workspace count for a niche tool
68 G2 reviews vs 34 Workspace ratings. G2 often runs gift-card review campaigns, and vendors can invite reviewers. G2 labels such reviews ('Incentivized', 'Invitation from vendor'), but I could not load them to check, so this is unverified. source
Reviews that look off
“early testing looks good”
Reviews that look real
“has provided better communication and clarity in the business”
“404 Bad Gateway”
Read: Workspace: read 10 of 20 written reviews (first page). Per-review stars were not available. G2: only the aggregate (4.6 from 68) loaded. Individual G2 reviews did not render on /reviews or ?page=2/?page=3 (JavaScript or login), so none were read. Note: the '4.6 from 68' figure in the brief is G2's. The Workspace listing itself currently shows 4.5 from 34 ratings with 78K+ installs.
Workspace: 4.1 from 41 ratings, 27 reviews, 4K+ installs. AppSumo: 4.9 from 33 (30 five-star, 3 four-star). Capterra: 5.0 from 2. · AppSumo: 91% 5-star, 9% 4-star, 0% 1-3 star. Workspace (by text, stars hidden): 8 positive, 1 mixed (Rohit D.), 1 strongly negative (Raghavv R., an AppSumo buyer who calls it 'Horrible app... falsely advertised').
mixed / some inflation · medium confidence
Most SendSimple reviews come from a single 2021 launch window. A pre-AppSumo burst includes reviewers who name or praise the founder personally, and the listing has about 10 ratings per 1,000 installs, far above his other apps. The AppSumo reviewers are long-standing verified buyers and a harsh negative remains, so this looks like a launch push from his network plus deal buyers, not bought or fake accounts. Only 15 of about 60 reviews across both platforms were readable.
Show all 7 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Workspace reviews cluster tightly before the AppSumo deal: Chaitanya B. May 29, 2021; Saimanoj P. and Rohit D. Jun 1, 2021. The AppSumo founder updates are dated May 31, 2021. A second wave follows during the deal: Jul 3, 9, 10 (two), 13 and 30, and Aug 8, 2021. AppSumo reviews run Jul 17 to Nov 21, 2021. Nothing visible after 2021.
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Very high ratings per install on Workspace (about 10 per 1,000)
41 ratings on only 4K+ installs. That is roughly 20 to 30 times the rate of SheetAI (0.31), MagicForm (0.47) or SlackNotify (0.44). It fits a concentrated push from deal buyers and the founder's network around launch. AppSumo buyers are real users, but they are actively asked to review. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Pre-launch cluster of polished positive reviews, one naming the founder
Three reviews in 4 days (May 29 to Jun 1, 2021), right before the AppSumo campaign. Rohit D. opens 'Creativity Begins with Sanskar Tiwari :)' and Saimanoj P. says 'the founder is promising', which suggests personal acquaintance. Chaitanya B. uses a headline-style title ('A Smart Feature Rich Solution to Send Personalized Emails'). Google's rules bar reviews from people who work for the developer; acquaintances are not barred, but this skews the rating. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
AppSumo vs Workspace rating gap
AppSumo shows 4.9 with no review below 4 stars. Workspace shows 4.1 and includes an AppSumo buyer's 'Horrible app' review. AppSumo deal pages tend to run high, which is a platform effect, so this gap is weak evidence on its own. source
✓ organic · moderate
AppSumo reviewers are verified purchasers with long buying histories
All 5 visible reviews carry the Verified Purchaser badge. Deals bought: jmountain75 274, Umar.Lateef 96, medbooksvn 17, p8919004023 14, Digi_tone 3. These are established AppSumo buyers, not throwaway accounts. source
✓ organic · weak
Same reviewer cross-posted on both platforms
Jacques V. on Workspace and jmountain75 on AppSumo both open 'I have been testing SendSimple app for a little over a week', both on Aug 8, 2021. This looks like one real buyer pasting the same review in two places, which Google's rules discourage ('Posting the same content more than once') but which is not fraud. source
✓ organic · moderate
Critical and mixed reviews remain
Raghavv R. ('Horrible app. Most functionality isn't implemented and is falsely advertised') and Rohit D.'s note of bugs and slow bulk sending stay visible on Workspace. source
✓ organic · weak
Repeated reviewers across his apps
No reviewer name from SendSimple appeared on the SheetAI, MagicForm or SlackNotify first pages, on the first page of MagicSlides' Workspace listing, or among BlurWeb's 4 Firefox ratings. A web search for the pre-launch reviewers' names with the founder's name found nothing. Edwin Y. mentions the developer's earlier BlurWeb product, which suggests a repeat customer. source
Reviews that look off
“Creativity Begins with Sanskar Tiwari :)”
“highly one of the easiest tool ever to send bulk emails”
“A Smart Feature Rich Solution to Send Personalized Emails”
Reviews that look real
“Horrible app. Most functionality isn't implemented and is falsely advertised.”
“I have been testing SendSimple app for a little over a week”
“SendSimple is a very useful Google Sheet Addon. I was looking for”
Read: Workspace: read 10 of 27 written reviews (first page). Per-review stars were not shown. AppSumo: read 5 of 33 (page 1). ?page=2, ?page=3, /reviews/list/?page=2 and ?sort=oldest all returned the same first 5. AppSumo gives the distribution as 30 five-star and 3 four-star. Also read Capterra (2 reviews, both 5-star, marked non-incentivized).
4.7 TrustScore from 29 reviews (100% 5-star) · 29/29 5-star, 0 negative. No company replies and no invitations ('company hasn't invited customers'). 0 reviews in the last 12 months.
mixed / some inflation · medium confidence
Most of the 29 reviews look like real early lifetime-deal buyers who were asked to post during the Feb-Mar 2021 sale, many of them with long review histories. But the 100% five-star profile includes a one-review account literally named 'Blur Webacc', a near-duplicate review posted the same day, and a few low-effort friendly reviews. The rating is inflated relative to other platforms rather than wholly fake.
Show all 6 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Heavy cluster from Feb 5 to Mar 20, 2021 (about 19 reviews, matching the early lifetime-deal sale period). Feb 15-17, 2021: 6 reviews in 3 days; Feb 24: 2; Mar 16: 4 on one day. Then a trickle: Jun 21, 2021 (update on PH launch day), Sep 24 and 27, 2021, Jan and Mar 2022, Jul 2022, Jul 2023, May 2024. Nothing since.
⚠ suspicious · strong
Account named after the product
A reviewer shown as 'Blur W.' ('Blur Webacc'), MY, with 1 review, posted on Feb 16, 2021: 'Great products easy-to-use... combine with my berrycast.' An account named after the product reads as made by or for the company. Trustpilot bars people 'closely associated with' a company from reviewing it. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Burst timing
About 6 five-star reviews landed on Feb 15-17, 2021 and 4 on Mar 16, 2021. Kyle M.'s review (Feb 16) is a title only, 'Great products easy-to-use due the job', which almost duplicates the 'Blur W.' wording on the same day ('Great products easy-to-use'). source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
100% 5-star with no invitations
29 of 29 five-star, unprompted, none verified, and none in the last 12 months. The flawless distribution contrasts with the 9 one-taco reviews on AppSumo and the complaints on Chrome Web Store. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Personal thanks to a named person, and text that doesn't fit the product
Santosh A. (IN, Jul 2022): 'Thanks, Shankar for Making this App' (the maker is Sanskar). Om G. (IN, Jul 2023) says it 'secures sensitive information on my website', but the tool blurs your screen, not a website. Both read as friends or low-effort reviews. source
✓ organic · moderate
Experienced, international reviewers with specific detail
Many reviewers have multi-review histories (Dan D. 23, Nourdh C. 21, Sue B. 18, Dan R. 16) from the US, GB, AU, FR, CH, BR and HU. Their texts mention specifics: '$12 for a lifetime deal', health-field patient data, email support answered 'in a couple of hours'. That pattern fits real AppSumo-style lifetime-deal buyers recruited by the founder's post-sale request rather than bought reviews. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Reviewer reused as a testimonial on a sister product site
'Sue Brettell' and 'Benedict Jamora' appear as testimonials on blurscreen.app. Sue B. (GB) and Benedict J. (PH) are BlurWeb Trustpilot reviewers. BlurWeb praise is being recycled for BlurScreen. source
Reviews that look off
“Great products easy-to-use . No more blur effect on video editor.”
“Great products easy-to-use due the job”
“Thanks, Shankar for Making this App. It works well.”
Reviews that look real
“I work in the health field and being able to blur patient health information”
“Why wouldn't you invest $12 for a lifetime deal”
“I had some questions and received all explanations per e-mail”
Read: All 29 reviews' metadata read: 20 on page 1 and 6 more on ?page=2 (a few overlap with the preview). Texts were read as excerpts.
3.9 from 63 ratings, 27 written reviews, 201K+ installs (site claims 4.5) · Unknown from the page. Going by the text, 10 readable reviews split about 5 negative (Trenton E., Lizzie B., Tina G., Honua H., Mumtaz H.), 1 mixed or resolved complaint (William B.) and 4 positive (sadegh H., Nacnic T., the 'Omni' account, mikeil).
mostly organic · low confidence
The written reviews I could read look like real users, with many detailed complaints about billing and support, and the rating count is small for the install base. The main problem is the developer's site claiming 4.5 against a live 3.9. A couple of early, promotional-sounding testimonials and replies asking people to update reviews are minor flags. Only 10 of 27 reviews and no per-review stars could be read.
Show all 5 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Positive reviews cluster in Dec 2022 to Mar 2023, around the GPT-for-Sheets launch period. Negatives run from Feb 2024 to Aug 2025. Developer replies to old negatives are batch-dated Nov 17, 2025.
✓ organic · moderate
Ratings per install are very low (about 0.31 ratings per 1,000 installs)
63 ratings on 201K+ installs. This is lower than MagicSlides (1,484 on 1M+, about 1.5 per 1,000), so there is no sign of a mass rating push here. The competitor baseline (AI Quiz Maker, 1M+ installs, about 89 ratings) is lower still. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Site claims 4.5 while the listing shows 3.9
The listing's average is 3.9 from 63 ratings. The site's 4.5 is not what Google shows. This is marketing inflation, not proof of fake reviews on the listing. Google's Marketplace policy bars listing metadata that 'misrepresent[s] the application's... ranking'. source
✓ organic · moderate
Recent negatives about payments and support outnumber recent positives
The negatives are detailed and specific: paid but plan not activated, getActiveUser error, unrelated rewrite output. The only recent positive is the one-word 'Gooood' (Aug 2025). A manipulated listing would usually bury these. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Promotional-sounding early testimonials
'Nacnic Team' (Mar 17, 2023) is a long testimonial that names a support person. The 'Omni' account (Dec 20, 2022) opens in the third person ('Ømni recently had the opportunity to try out...'). Both read like marketing copy, but neither proves manipulation. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Developer asks complainants to change their reviews and offers compensation
The reply to William B. (Jan 31, 2023) asks him to update his review. Per the summary, a May 16, 2024 reply on Tina G.'s complaint offers a full refund plus a free year. Refunds for a failed purchase are normal; offering perks next to a request to revise a review is the kind of incentive Google's review rules forbid ('Don't offer... money, products, or services to write reviews'). The text read does not tie the perk to changing the review. source
Reviews that look off
“Gooood”
“I recently discovered the app Sheet.ai and I have to say, it's”
“Ømni recently had the opportunity to try out the Sheet AI app”
Reviews that look real
“Paid. Didn't activate. Account says I'm still on the free plan.”
“This is terrific! Very easy to use, extremely powerful. It's still a”
“I get this error below. Please reply to my chat message. Exception:”
Read: Read 10 of 27 written reviews (first page, default/'Helpful' sort). Pages 2-3 and the 'Recent' sort need JavaScript and could not be loaded (tried ?hl=en&sort=newest; it returned the same 10). Per-review star ratings and the star histogram are not in the server-rendered page, so the stars on each review are unknown. Direct curl was blocked by the proxy, so WebFetch was used.
3.9 from 50 ratings, 29 written reviews, 106K+ installs (site claims 4.4) · Unknown per review. By text: 4 positive (Lucy U., Mohit K. J., Lavanya G., one other short), 5 negative (Nathan H., Chris R., Ronald, Joe S. G., Jerome M.), 2 off-topic spam (Diriba B. pasted a book table of contents; Belaineh M. pasted a bio).
mostly organic · low confidence
The visible reviews look like ordinary users, many of them unhappy about payments and support, and the rating count is small for 100K+ installs. The main inflation is on the developer's own site (4.4 claimed vs 3.9 live). Only 10 of 29 reviews were readable and per-review stars were not available.
Show all 4 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Spread from Apr 2024 to Oct 2026 with no visible same-day bursts. The newest review is dated Oct 30, 2026.
✓ organic · moderate
Low ratings per install (about 0.47 per 1,000)
50 ratings on 106K+ installs. No sign of a rating push. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Site claims 4.4 while the listing shows 3.9
The live average is 3.9 from 50 ratings. The claimed 4.4 is not supported by the listing. source
✓ organic · moderate
Several 'scam / does not work / paid but locked' complaints, mostly unanswered
Jerome M. (Jun 2024) calls it a scam. Chris R. (May 2024) still saw upgrade prompts after paying. Nathan H. (Dec 2025) is seeking a refund. Only Chris R. got a developer reply ('MagicQuest App', May 11, 2024). Negatives are left visible. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Short or generic positives
'Good tool.' (Lucy U., Oct 30, 2026). 'Very useful for students' (Mohit K. J., Nov 2025). Lavanya G. (Jun 2024) praises a 'smooth, seamless user interface' in brochure language. These are common in organic student traffic too. source
Reviews that look off
“Good tool.”
“smooth, seamless user interface”
Reviews that look real
“it doesn't even work”
“upgrade to pro”
Read: Read 10 of 29 written reviews (first page only). Further pages and per-review stars need JavaScript and could not be loaded.
4.0 (3.96) from 119 ratings, 10,000 users (Extscope); CWS reviews page shows 4.5 from 110 · Per-review stars not visible. From the text, about 6 of 10 recent reviews are positive and 4 are complaints (licence never arrived, stopped working, blur lost on reload, 48h activation wait).
mostly organic · low confidence
Only the 10 newest reviews loaded, without star values. They look like real users, including several unanswered complaints about licensing and reliability. The listing's average has slipped to about 4.0, and nothing visible points to manipulation, but the 2021-2022 reviews behind most of the rating could not be checked.
Show all 5 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Visible reviews are spread over Mar 2023 to Feb 2025, with a small cluster from May to Jul 2023 (5 positive reviews). No new reviews after Feb 2025. User count flat at 10K.
✓ organic · weak
Ratings per installs
119 ratings / 10,000 users = ~12 per 1,000. The baseline 'Blurry' extension has 9 ratings / ~2,000 users = ~4.5 per 1,000. That is higher, but plausible for a paid lifetime-deal tool whose buyers are engaged AppSumo users. source
✓ organic · moderate
Negative reviews visible and unanswered
Recent reviews include serious complaints, for example a paid subscription that brought no licence or reply after 5 days (9 of 11 found it helpful) and an app that 'no longer works' (Feb 2025). None has a developer reply. Negatives are not being buried, but support looks poor. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Marketing-style review title
One May 2023 review is titled 'A Must-Have App for Secure Screen Sharing: Blurweb App Review', which reads like blog or SEO copy rather than a user comment. source
✓ organic · moderate
Specific, use-case positive reviews
Positive reviews name concrete uses (OBS tutorials, customer-support videos, toggling hidden areas across Chrome windows) and include feature requests (hide the address bar). source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Rating gap between the two sources
The CWS reviews page shows 4.5 from 110, while the current store average is 4.0 from 119. The 9 newer ratings appear to have pulled the average down, which suggests recent ratings are more negative than early ones. This is inferred from the two counts, not read from individual stars. source
Reviews that look off
“A Must-Have App for Secure Screen Sharing: Blurweb App Review”
Reviews that look real
“after 5 days I didn't get a license nor even a reply”
“I could not find something to add to OBS, and this definitely resolves”
“Unfortunately, the Chrome app no longer works.”
Read: 10 review texts (newest, Mar 2023 to Feb 2025) from the /reviews URL without ?hl=en. The ?hl=en URL was blocked (robots_disallowed). Per-review star values did not render. The page header showed 4.5 from 110 ratings. Extscope (https://www.extscope.org/extension/oeingmcibfkfneecplcppjhcekgedmco) gives a store average of 4.0 (3.96) from 119 ratings and 10K users; its review bodies are paywalled. Older reviews (2021-2022) were not reachable.
AppSumo 4.58 from 158 reviews (132x5, 7x4, 7x3, 3x2, 9x1); Plus Exclusive deal 4.6 from 151 (launched 8 Jun 2022, $47). Product Hunt 271 upvotes, #3 of the day on 21 Jun 2021. · AppSumo ~84% 5-taco, ~6% 1-taco, ~12% 1-3 taco.
mostly organic · medium confidence
AppSumo reviews come from verified buyers with long purchase histories, and the listing keeps 9 one-taco and several three-taco reviews, so it looks genuine if generous. The Product Hunt launch was organised (professional hunter, existing customers commenting) but shows no sign of fake accounts. The bigger issue is that the 158-review AppSumo count appears to be reused, with a 4.9 rating, in claims on other product sites.
Show all 6 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Most AppSumo reviews presumably date from the June 2022 Plus Exclusive launch (not directly read). Recent reviews trickle in during 2026 (Feb, Jun 6, Jun 24, Jun 25, Sep 19). The founder replied to three of them in one batch on Nov 1, 2026, and to two 3-taco reviews about a year late (Sep 13, 2024).
✓ organic · strong
Verified purchasers with long deal histories
Every review read is a verified purchaser with a long AppSumo history (36-177 deals bought, members since 2016-2021). AppSumo only lets buyers review, which makes fake accounts costly. source
✓ organic · moderate
Critical reviews kept, with an apology
A 3-taco review describes an invalid licence in Chrome and support silent for a week. The founder replied 'i am extremely sorry' a year later. A 3-taco 'Good not better' (Sep 2024) also stands. source
✓ organic · weak
5-star ratings despite complaints
Reviews titled 'Couldn't Redeem License & Support Has Not Responded' and a licence-comma bug tip still give 5 tacos. That fits AppSumo's lenient-buyer culture, not fabrication. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
AppSumo count of 158 recycled in site claims
The AppSumo listing has exactly 158 reviews at 4.58. blurscreen.app claims 'Rated 4.9/5 by 158 customers', and SlackNotify's site claims '4.9 from 158 reviews' (per the earlier research). The 158 count appears to be borrowed from BlurWeb's AppSumo page, with the rating rounded up to 4.9. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
Product Hunt launch used a professional hunter
'Kevin William David' is listed on the Launch Team. He is a well-known serial PH hunter whose network drives upvotes. That is a common, permitted growth tactic, not fake voting. Upvoter names were not visible, so a friends network could not be tested. source
⚠ suspicious · weak
PH commenters praise the maker by name and support
Several commenters praise Sanskar personally ('always ready to get on a call', 'very responsive'). These look like existing lifetime-deal customers rallied for the launch. Attila Gyarmati also reviewed on Trustpilot in Feb 2021. Others are independent: Chris Messina (Raycast) asked a sceptical product question, Ruben W. asked about a 2-second exposure gap, and two commenters have their own product affiliations. source
Reviews that look off
“Sanskar is always ready to get on a call with you”
Reviews that look real
“useful, but does not work on all websites”
“TIP if you're having trouble with redemption”
“So... you have to do the blurring BEFORE you record or go live, right?”
Read: AppSumo: the 5 newest reviews plus 2 individual review pages (3-taco, Sep 2023 and Sep 2024), and the full taco breakdown. Pagination (?page=2) returned the same 5, so older 2021-2022 reviews were not read. SumoTrends gives deal metadata. Product Hunt: launch page with about 17 comments (pages 1-2; the second fetch returned the same set). The upvoter list could not be loaded, and the PH reviews tab was empty.
Product Hunt 5.0 from 2 reviews (3 launches, first in 2023); G2 4.4 from 4 reviews · Product Hunt: 2 of 2 positive. G2: not readable.
cannot tell · low confidence
Product Hunt has just 2 reviews: one is a launch-day congratulation addressed to Sanskar, the other is a short, specific review. G2 has only 4 reviews, and their text could not be loaded. Neither platform carries enough weight to show or rule out manipulation.
Show all 3 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Product Hunt reviews are dated '2yr ago' and '3yr ago', around the 2023 launches. G2 not readable.
⚠ suspicious · weak
Launch-day supporter review addressed to the founder
Udayraj P. (an account with 392 reviews) wrote 'Congratulations on the successful launch of your new product!' and ended 'good luck Sanskar'. That is a launch-support message, not a product review, and is common on Product Hunt. source
✓ organic · weak
Feature-specific review from a one-review account
Shipra S. (1 review) mentions the 'Quick Theme Switcher' and customizable templates. source
✓ organic · weak
Very small sample size
With 2 reviews on Product Hunt and 4 on G2, these platforms add little weight. Nothing suggests a large review push here. source
Reviews that look off
“Congratulations on the successful launch of your new product! It takes courage to innovate”
Reviews that look real
“user-friendly interface and customizable templates make creating”
Read: Product Hunt: both reviews read. G2: only the summary (4.4 from 4 reviews) loaded. No individual G2 review text was returned on either the default or the ?order=most_recent URL.
4.3 from 2,386 ratings, 15M+ installs · Not shown. By text, 3 of 10 are negative and 7 positive.
mixed / some inflation · low confidence
This baseline shows that copy-paste and generic reviews also appear on a large competitor, so on Workspace those signals alone are weak. MagicSlides does stand out for a much higher ratings-per-install ratio and a higher average.
Show all 2 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Visible reviews run from Jan to Oct 2026.
⚠ suspicious · weak
Duplicate and copied text also appears on the competitor
Marshid D.C. (Aug 29, 2026) and Liandro N. (Sep 15, 2026) share near-identical wording. Shubham S. (Jan 15, 2026) repeats Meko C.'s opening. So duplicate texts are not unique to MagicSlides on this marketplace. source
✓ organic · weak
Lower rating density and average
SlidesAI has about 0.16 ratings per 1,000 installs and a 4.3 average, against MagicSlides at about 1.5 per 1,000 and 4.7. Visible SlidesAI reviews include detailed complaints (paid Pro, slow, obsolete). source
Reviews that look off
“Great product you can create a complete slide presentation by just pasting the text”
Reviews that look real
“Paid for Pro because I needed slides quickly. Instead, I got a live demonstration”
Read: 10 visible reviews of 405 read. No per-review stars shown.
Average not legible; about 89 ratings (unconfirmed), 25 reviews, 1M+ installs · By text: about 5 positive, 5 negative ('does not work', 'won't open correctly', purple pop-up, payment then not opening).
mostly organic · low confidence
The competitor shows the same mix of short generic praise and 'does not work' complaints, so short positives on SheetAI and MagicForm are not unusual for this category. Its rating density is lower than all of Tiwari's listings, and SendSimple is far above everything else.
Show all 1 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: Spread from Jun 2024 to Mar 2026 with no clusters.
✓ organic · moderate
Comparable listing has similar generic praise and a similar install-to-rating ratio
Generic short positives ('What an awesome arrangement is it.', 'Amazing app, easy to use'), the same mix of 'does not work' complaints, and fewer than 0.1 ratings per 1,000 installs. The developer replies to every review, including negatives. SheetAI and MagicForm look much like this normal category pattern. SendSimple's 10 ratings per 1,000 installs is the outlier. source
Reviews that look off
None flagged
Reviews that look real
“Don't bother does not work...”
Read: Read 10 of 25 written reviews (first page). The average rating was not legible in the fetched text. An unlabeled '89' appears next to the ratings info, probably the rating count. Installs now show 1M+ (the brief said 463K).
MagicSlides Workspace 4.7 from 1,484; BlurWeb Firefox 5.0 from 4 · BlurWeb Firefox: 4 of 4 are 5-star. MagicSlides first page: mix of one-word positives ('Looks great', 'so good', 'OKE', 'hello') and strong negatives.
cannot tell · low confidence
I found no reviewer names that recur across his apps in the pages I could load, which argues against a shared pool of fake accounts. BlurWeb's Firefox ratings all landing on one day and MagicSlides' one-word and description-like reviews point to solicited reviews, not bought accounts. A user on MagicSlides openly alleges fake reviews.
Show all 4 signals and the timeline
When reviews arrived: All 4 BlurWeb Firefox ratings are dated the same day, May 16, 2021, one of them with no text.
✓ organic · weak
No reviewer names recur across his listings
I compared all names readable on SheetAI, MagicForm, SlackNotify, SendSimple (Workspace and AppSumo), MagicSlides page 1 and BlurWeb Firefox and found no overlap. The only cross-post is one SendSimple buyer on Workspace and AppSumo. Coverage was limited to first pages. source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
BlurWeb Firefox: every rating on one day
4 of 4 five-star ratings on May 16, 2021, one without text. One says 'I paid for this sometime ago when it was Chrome', suggesting existing customers were asked to rate the new Firefox version on launch day (solicited, possibly genuine). source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Fake-review allegation on MagicSlides
Samuel (Mar 5, 2025): 'It's a poor app with thousands of fake reviews'. Volodymyr D. (Dec 28, 2025): 'I just wonder where all those' [good reviews come from]. Taanya T. (Mar 27, 2025) reads like the product description ('MagicSlides App – GPT for Slides is an AI-powered tool designed to help'). source
⚠ suspicious · moderate
Google policy context
The Marketplace program policy prohibits 'inflating product ratings, reviews, or install counts by illegitimate means, such as fraudulent or incentivized downloads, reviews and ratings' and metadata that misrepresents ranking. The review rules say 'Don't offer or accept money, products, or services to write reviews' and 'If you own the app or work for the business that created it, don't review it.' The reported MagicSlides credits-for-5-star offer would breach the incentive rule if it ran on this platform. source
Reviews that look off
“MagicSlides App – GPT for Slides is an AI-powered tool designed to help”
“hello”
Reviews that look real
“This developer is super responsive and solved all the small”
Read: MagicSlides Workspace: first 10 of 333 reviews read (4.7 from 1,484, 1M+ installs). BlurWeb Firefox add-on: all 4 ratings read. Google Marketplace program policy and the user review rules were read.
The apps
11 products featured, with numbers as stated in the video and our read on each.
TrustMRR shows $9,801 MRR and $731,579 all-time, roughly 14x the next-largest app on the dashboard in the brief (SheetAI, $52k total). The other apps' TrustMRR pages were not checked by this agent. source
✓ Confirmed
~$10k MRR and $729k lifetime revenue
Stripe-verified TrustMRR page (Nov 8, 2026): MRR $9,801, last-30-day revenue $9,343, total $731,579. A search snippet showed $10,350 for the last 30 days at an earlier snapshot. Both are consistent with the video's ~Oct 2026 figures. source
✓ Confirmed
Listed for sale
TrustMRR marks it for sale with a $700,000 asking price (about 6x annualized MRR, close to 1x lifetime revenue). No Acquire.com or Flippa listing was found. source
? Unverified
Launched after an investor asked him for a pitch deck
His own article says only that 'someone messaged me asking for a pitch deck' while he was building SheetAI. It does not say the person was an investor. TrustMRR gives the founding date as Jan 2023. source
? Unverified
Own YouTube channel with a demo video at ~145k organic views
The channel exists (@magicslidesapp, 'Learn how to Create Presentation Slides with AI in seconds') and is linked from the site. View counts could not be read: the channel pages returned no stats, the RSS feed was robots-blocked and video pages were rate-limited. source
≈ Plausible
Landing page shows 'Trusted by 2.4M+ professionals' and '10 Million+ presentations created'
As of Nov 10, 2026 the page reads 'Trusted by 2.6M+ professionals' and '10 Million+ Presentations Created'. The user figure is higher than 2.4M, which fits a counter updated since filming. TrustMRR says ~2.3M users. source
≈ Plausible
One of his Google Workspace apps hit a million users (this one?)
The MagicSlides Workspace Marketplace listing shows 1M+ installs, 4.7 stars and 1,484 ratings, so it is very likely the app meant. The Instagram post itself was not found, and SheetAI's install count was not checked here. source
What users like
Speed and ease: 'Very easy to use and very effective' (Trustpilot, Jul 2026)
Full deck from text in minutes: 'generates in less than 2 minutes, full blown ppt' (Workspace Marketplace)
Many inputs (YouTube, PDF, URL): converts a YouTube video to PPT 'in minutes' (Trustpilot, Aug 2026)
Works inside Google Slides, so the workflow stays in one place (dokie.ai review, Mar 2026)
What users complain about
Generation fails or hangs: 'cannot generate even one slide after two to three minutes' (Workspace Marketplace)
Export paywall frustration: 'will not allow it to be downloaded' (Trustpilot, Aug 2026)
Output needs manual polish, and short prompts give generic slides (dokie.ai review; Trustpilot 4-star, Oct 2025)
Allegedly asked for 'a 5-star review and send them a screenshot' in exchange for credits (Trustpilot, Jun 2026)
How it actually charges
Freemium with monthly or annual Stripe subscriptions in three tiers, capped by presentations and slides per deck, plus a $99 done-for-you deck service. TrustMRR shows 747 active subs.
Free $0 (free version, limited)
Essential $8/mo or $80/yr; 10 presentations/mo, up to 10 slides
Pro $16/mo or $149/yr; 50 presentations/mo, up to 15 slides
Premium $29/mo or $279/yr; 50+ slides, no watermark, extra exports and Magic Sheets/Docs
Done By Us $99 one-time (shown as discounted from $500) for a designer-made deck
Talked about
TrustMRR: Stripe-verified listing, for sale at $700k. Founder Sanskar Tiwari (@indianappguy), India, bootstrapped, no employees.
sanskartiwari.io article (Aug 11, 2026): Origin story: while building SheetAI, 'someone messaged me asking for a pitch deck'. Growth came from Instagram reels and organic sharing.
Trustpilot: 4.5/5 from 61 reviews, 10% 1-star. Trustpilot flags no recent review invitations and slow replies to negative reviews.
G2 / Capterra: G2 4.4/5 from 4 reviews. Capterra has 0 reviews and lists $8/mo starting price.
microns.io: A separate AI deck startup for sale ($41k ARR, ~$157k implied ask) names MagicSlides as a competitor. This is not MagicSlides.
Competitors
Gamma: the leading AI deck and doc generator
SlidesAI: a Google Slides AI add-on, the most direct like-for-like rival
Plus AI: an AI presentation add-on for Google Slides and PowerPoint
Dokie AI: AI presentation maker that positions itself as a MagicSlides alternative
Decktopus: AI presentation builder with AppSumo deals
So what: MagicSlides is a real, Stripe-verified business: about $9.8k MRR from 747 subscribers, $730k lifetime, an organic distribution engine of 1M+ Workspace installs plus SEO, and an asking price of $700k. As a clone target, the core 'text/PDF/YouTube to slides' feature is commoditized (Gamma, SlidesAI, Plus AI). The defensible part is the Marketplace listing's install base and reviews plus years of SEO content, and a newcomer would have to rebuild both from scratch.
Our take
How we'd do it better: Crowded AI-slides space. A narrower angle could win, e.g. one input type done perfectly (YouTube video to deck, or meeting transcript to deck) or one audience (teachers, sales decks) at a lower price.
Risks: Google, Microsoft, Canva and Gamma all ship this natively; output quality is the whole product.
No source found showing peak MRR. TrustMRR page shows no history; a mirror showed $916 MRR around Jan 2026, consistent with decline but not confirming a $2k peak. source
≈ Plausible
Growth driven by YouTube tutorials
A dedicated @sheetai YouTube channel exists and is linked from the site; video/view stats could not be loaded. source
? Unverified
Attracted investor interest
No source found mentioning investors; About page mentions none. source
TrustMRR (different product): A separate 'SheetAI' entry (founded Dec 2025, web app + Excel add-in, $376 MRR, $2,805 all-time) appears to be an unrelated product; do not confuse with sheetai.app.
YouTube: Channel 'SheetAI App' (@sheetai) exists and is linked from the About page; subscriber/view counts could not be loaded (YouTube RSS blocked).
Competitors
SheetXAI: AI assistant for Sheets, 5K+ installs, 4.9 from 29 ratings
SheetMagic: AI agent + web scraping for Sheets (Workspace Marketplace)
GPT for Sheets-style add-ons: many formula-based LLM add-ons in the Marketplace
So what: SheetAI has huge install reach (201K+) but converts poorly: ~36 paying subs and $388 MRR, with a BYO-key free tier that caps monetization and a crowded field of GPT-for-Sheets clones. Easy to clone technically, but the evidence suggests the category is commoditized and declining for this app (MRR fell from ~$916 in Jan 2026 to $388 by Nov 2026).
Our take
How we'd do it better: Ship vertical formulas for a specific job (e.g. SEO keyword clustering, lead enrichment, product-description writing) with transparent per-use pricing.
Risks: Gemini in Sheets is built in; differentiation must be workflow-specific.
Install issues: add-on not found, 'redirect fails... 404' (Feb 2024)
Silent failures when webhook expires (G2)
Limited message customization (G2)
How it actually charges
Free trial of 10 notifications, then per-user annual subscription via Stripe.
Free 10 free Slack notifications
Premium (per Google account, unlimited messages) $3.25/user/mo billed annually
Talked about
slacknotify.app: Sanskar Tiwari named as creator; sister product DiscordNotify mentioned.
Competitors
Zapier/Make form-to-Slack automations: general-purpose substitute (not researched, no source checked)
So what: SlackNotify is a tiny, simple utility with the most paying subs of these add-ons (78) and steady, low-maintenance revenue since 2022. Trivial to clone technically, but the upside is capped at a few hundred dollars MRR and Zapier-style tools substitute.
Our take
How we'd do it better: Same pattern for Teams, Discord and WhatsApp, or for Typeform/Tally; a 'form responses anywhere' add-on.
Risks: Zapier and native integrations cover it for teams already paying for them.
TrustMRR (Stripe-verified): MRR $217 from 59 active subscriptions; last 30 days $239; updated Nov 9, 2026. source
✓ Confirmed
BlurWeb $34k lifetime revenue
TrustMRR all-time revenue $33,703; founded Oct 2022 per TrustMRR (though the product launched on PH in Jun 2021, so pre-Stripe revenue, if any, may be missing). source
✓ Confirmed
Chrome Web Store users/rating
10,000 users, 4.0/5 from 119 ratings, v1.5.1 updated Oct 22, 2026 (reviews subpage showed 4.5/5 from 110). source
What users like
Easy to use: 'It's SO easy to use, it just re-paid for itself with the very first recording' (Chrome review, Jul 2023)
Saves post-production editing for tutorial makers: 'this definitely resolves my problem and now I can start making my tutorial videos' (Chrome, Jul 2023)
Responsive support: 'The developer and his support are awesome and really reactive.' (Chrome, Mar 2023)
Value of the lifetime deal: 'For the price you can't go wrong' (Trustpilot, Sep 2021; 29 reviews, 4.7/5, none in the last 12 months)
What users complain about
Slow or missing license activation: 'i need to wat 48 hours to activate my license' (Chrome, Mar 2023); 'I didn't get a license nor even a reply' (Chrome, Oct 2023)
Breaks after reloads or updates: 'it does not work after reaload the page' (Chrome, Aug 2023); 'the Chrome app no longer works' (Chrome, Feb 2025)
How it actually charges
The site sells paid licenses as one-time lifetime payments, but TrustMRR shows 59 active Stripe subscriptions ($217 MRR), so a recurring plan also exists (the site has a Yearly toggle but lists no yearly price).
Professional (3 browsers) $67 one-time (lifetime)
Startup (10 browsers) $127 one-time (lifetime)
Talked about
Product Hunt: Launched Jun 21, 2021 by Kevin William David and Sanskar Tiwari; #3 of the day, 271 upvotes; commenters liked skipping post-production blurring.
Indie Hackers: Jun 27, 2022 post by Sanskar: BlurScreen was built after BlurWeb customers asked to blur the URL bar, which an extension can't do. No figures given.
Trustpilot: Claimed profile (Jan 2021), 4.7/5 from 29 reviews, all 5-star, mostly 2021-2022.
Competitors
Blur It / Blur It 5.0: Chrome blur extension listed as an alternative on Product Hunt
DataBlur: data-blurring extension listed as an alternative on Product Hunt
AdBlur, Blurry, Cloakly: other blur tools on Product Hunt's alternatives page
AI BlurWeb (aiblurweb.com): a similarly named rival with its own TrustMRR and Trustpilot pages (trustmrr.com/startup/aiblurweb)
So what: BlurWeb is a small, steady niche business: about 10k Chrome users who now earn around $200/mo, after a $34k lifetime mostly from one-time licenses. It is an easy clone target technically (a DOM-blur extension), but the market is crowded with free blur extensions, and reviews flag license activation and reliability as the weak spots to beat.
Our take
How we'd do it better: Auto-detect and blur emails, API keys, card numbers and names while recording; add Safari/Firefox and a one-time price.
Risks: Low barrier to entry; free alternatives exist.
Second 'MagicSlides App' listing at MRR $206 / total $907
It is the iOS/Android app, verified through RevenueCat. On Nov 8, 2026 TrustMRR showed $180 MRR and $933 total, consistent with the ~Oct figures in the video. It is not marked for sale. source
What users like
Not mentioned
What users complain about
Not mentioned
How it actually charges
Free Flutter mobile app with in-app subscriptions through RevenueCat (weekly, monthly and yearly tiers), priced higher than the web plans.
Premium Weekly $2.99
Essential $11.99/mo or $114.99/yr
Pro $22.99/mo or $214.99/yr
Premium $41.99/mo or $109.99/yr
Talked about
TrustMRR: Describes a B2C Flutter mobile app that generates slides from a topic, aimed at founders, students, teachers and marketers. No sale listing.
Competitors
Gamma and the web/add-on rivals listed for MagicSlides.app: same commoditized topic-to-deck feature
So what: The mobile companion is recent (App Store version history starts Jan 30, year not shown) and tiny: about $180 MRR, 10K+ Play downloads and 1 App Store rating. Distribution comes from the main brand, not the app stores. It shows that putting the same product in the app stores added almost no revenue, so mobile is a weak wedge for a clone.
Our take
How we'd do it better: Not worth copying on its own: the same product in the app stores added almost no revenue.
Risks: App store discovery for AI deck makers is crowded.
▶ 2:00AskVideo.ai: 'Don't watch it again. Ask what you need to know.'
$145MRR
$4.2kRevenue
Listed as AskVideo.ai
Facts
Builder
Sanskar Tiwari
Figures
Shown on screen at 1:12 (TrustMRR-style dashboard, about Oct 2026)
Pricing
Free
$0 · 180 min YouTube/mo
Premium
$8/mo
Pro
$29/mo
Business
$99/mo
Lifetime
$199 · 100 founding seats
Model
freemium, subscription, lifetime deal
How it gets customers
Not mentioned
Built with
Not mentioned
What worked
Not mentioned
Challenges
Not mentioned
Reality check · from around the webactive
'Trusted by 6,580+ users'; '6.5k+ videos analyzed in the last 30 days' (other stat counters show placeholder dashes)askvideo.ai (self-reported) users · fetched 2026-11-10
TrustMRR startup page: MRR $145, 16 active subscriptions, updated Oct 28, 2026. The founder page fetched later shows MRR $100 and 30-day revenue of $64, so the figure is falling or fluctuating. source
✓ Confirmed
AskVideo $4.2k lifetime revenue
TrustMRR all-time revenue $4,193; founded Aug 2023. source
What users like
Fast summaries and answers: 'Askvideo helps me summarise the videos get answers from them in seconds' (Trustpilot, Oct 2025)
Handles long videos: 'it's really reliable since some of the video's are 2-3 hrs long' (Trustpilot, Nov 2025)
What users complain about
Unresponsive support: 'They never gave me an answer and were never cooperative.' (Trustpilot 1-star, Oct 29, 2026; it mentions an 'offline course player', so it may be about a different product)
How it actually charges
Freemium SaaS with monthly/yearly tiers ($8-$99/mo, 17% off yearly) and a limited $199 lifetime deal, now pitched toward businesses with an embeddable chatbot over training videos, plus a CLI and API.
Free $0 (180 min YouTube indexing, 30 min uploads, 100 AI messages/mo)
AI tool directories: Listed on many directories (toolbit.ai, stork.ai, moge.ai, webcatalog), with no substantive discussion found.
Competitors
AskTube: AI YouTube summarizer & chat Chrome extension
Ask Your Video: Chrome extension to chat with videos
Ask YouTube Videos (TunePaw): AI summarizer & chat extension
Many free 'chat with YouTube' extensions; YouTube/Gemini built-in 'Ask' features squeeze the consumer use case
So what: AskVideo is a commodity 'chat with YouTube' wrapper: about 3 years old, $4.2k lifetime, roughly $100-145 MRR, and now pivoting to B2B training-video chatbots and lifetime deals to find buyers. Easy to clone, but this shows the consumer wedge barely monetizes, given free competitors and built-in platform AI.
Our take
How we'd do it better: Turn chat into a deliverable: structured notes, study guides, or (like this project) insight pages from a channel's videos.
Risks: Very crowded; YouTube and Gemini offer 'ask this video' natively; transcript access is blocked from many servers.
TrustMRR list shows $143 / $11k; the startup page (updated Oct 5, 2026) shows $114 MRR, 8 subs, $10,562 all-time. source
✓ Confirmed
Has its own YouTube channel
Channel @_magicform linked from magicform.app; size not verified. source
✓ Confirmed
Marketplace installs and rating
106K+ installs, 3.9 from 50 ratings; site claims 4.4/5. source
What users like
Saves time: 'Very useful for students. It saves a lot of our time.' (Nov 2025)
Interface/features: 'made my professional life easier tenfold' (Jun 2024)
What users complain about
Paid but no access: 'Paid for app online can't access it now.' (Dec 2025)
Subscription not recognized, support unresponsive: 'Subscription does not work... no one responds' (Jun 2024)
Doesn't work: 'it doesn't even work' (Mar 2025)
How it actually charges
Freemium subscription: 5 free quizzes/month, then Pro at $89/year via Stripe.
Free (5 quizzes/mo, 8 questions/quiz) $0
Pro (unlimited quizzes, 40 questions/quiz, branding) $7.42/mo billed $89/yr
Talked about
YouTube: Own channel 'MagicForm App' (@_magicform), 'Text to Quiz in one click'; subscriber/video counts could not be loaded.
MagicSlides blog: Cross-promotional quiz-generation content on sister product's blog.
Competitors
AI Quiz Maker (Workspace add-on): 463K+ installs, 3.9 from 71 ratings, free
Other GPT-for-Forms quiz generators in the Marketplace
So what: MagicForm has 106K+ installs but only ~8 paying subscribers at a low $89/yr price, and recurring complaints about paid access failing. The niche is clonable but a free competitor (AI Quiz Maker, 463K+ installs) leads, so the monetization ceiling looks low.
Our take
How we'd do it better: The 'one AI add-on per Workspace app' pattern is repeatable: look for Docs, Gmail, Calendar or Drive gaps with clear single jobs.
Risks: Small market per add-on; Workspace Marketplace review process.
TrustMRR (Stripe-verified): MRR $118 from 37 active subscriptions; last 30 days $111; updated Oct 28, 2026. The founder page later showed MRR $114 and 30-day revenue of $196. source
✓ Confirmed
BlurScreen $17k lifetime revenue
TrustMRR all-time revenue $17,369; founded Oct 2022. source
What users like
Indie Hackers commenters (Jun 2022) praised the idea; one said the price is worth it for the time saved. No independent review base was found.
What users complain about
Indie Hackers commenter (Jun 2022) reported a broken mobile site and asked for a free trial. No other complaints were found.
How it actually charges
Paid-only macOS/Windows desktop licenses, shown as one-time prices with 1 year of updates. A Yearly/Lifetime toggle and a Stripe billing portal, plus 37 active subscriptions on TrustMRR, show recurring renewals as well. An AppSumo deal ran previously.
Basic (1 device, 1 yr updates) $19 one-time
Professional (3 devices) $47 one-time
Team (10 devices) $97 one-time
Talked about
Indie Hackers: Launch post, Jun 27, 2022: native desktop follow-on to BlurWeb, built because customers wanted to blur the URL bar and other apps.
AppSumo: Partner-managed listing 'BlurScreen App - Blur Anything on Screen'; deal currently unavailable, no reviews.
Competitors
Blurred (Mac App Store): blurs background windows on macOS (focus-oriented)
All Blur: instant screen blur for macOS (Product Hunt)
PeekFocus / Monocle: blur or dim inactive windows (focus tools, adjacent)
OS-level recorders like Loom don't do live region blurring, which is BlurScreen's wedge
So what: BlurScreen is an upsell from BlurWeb's customer base (same blur-during-screen-share job, but at OS level), and it earns about $110-120/mo after $17k lifetime. As a clone target it is harder than an extension, since it needs native Mac/Windows overlay code, and the market is tiny, with no independent review footprint.
Our take
How we'd do it better: Bundle with BlurWeb as one cross-platform privacy kit for streamers and support teams.
Where the idea came fromReused the Ask Video pattern for PDFs.
Facts
Builder
Sanskar Tiwari
Pricing
Free
$0 · 3 PDFs
Premium
$8/mo · $80/yr
Model
subscription
How it gets customers
Not mentioned
Built with
Not mentioned
What worked
Reused the Ask Video pattern for a new input type
Challenges
Not mentioned
Reality check · from around the webactive
'Join 23,000+ users'; '23k+ PDFs analyzed in the last 30 days' (stat counters show placeholders)talkingpdf.io (self-reported) users · fetched 2026-11-10
122 points, #20 of the day, launched 2023, 1 review (5.0)Product Hunt upvotes · fetched 2026-11-10
not listed on the founder's TrustMRR pageTrustMRR listing · fetched 2026-11-10
Both sites, from the same company (IndianAppGuy Tech; TalkingPDF's footer links AskVideo), use a matching template: a 'Free to start' hero, an 'Nk+ items analyzed in the last 30 days' counter, the same placeholder stat block, and an $8/mo entry premium tier. Both launched on Product Hunt in 2023. Neither site states that the code was reused. source
? Unverified
Revenue (none claimed in the video)
TalkingPDF is not among the 9 startups on the founder's TrustMRR page, so no verified revenue exists. source
What users like
Only one review was found (Product Hunt), praising the concept of chatting with a PDF.
What users complain about
None found.
How it actually charges
Freemium with a single $8/mo ($80/yr) premium tier; team licenses on request.
Product Hunt: 2023 launch by Sanskar Tiwari, 122 points.
Competitors
Talk to PDF (Product Hunt) and the many chat-with-PDF tools; ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini now accept PDFs natively, so the category is largely absorbed
So what: TalkingPDF is the same 'chat with X' template as AskVideo, pointed at PDFs, and it has no verified revenue, which suggests it is one of his non-earning launches. A clone needs only a weekend, but frontier chat apps reading PDFs natively make it a poor standalone business.
Our take
How we'd do it better: Only worth it for a narrow vertical (contracts, research papers, insurance policies) with domain-specific outputs.
Risks: Commoditized by every general AI assistant.
Product Hunt launch May 25, 2021 predates SheetAI (2022 PH launch; TrustMRR founded Nov 2022) and SlackNotify (founded Apr 2022). No source states it was his 'first serious' product. source
? Unverified
Built ~2 years before MagicSlides
SendSimple dates to at least May 2021; MagicSlides launch date was not checked in this research (covered by another agent). If MagicSlides launched ~2023, the gap is about 2 years. source
✓ Confirmed
Sends via Gmail/Amazon SES/SendGrid
Listing names Gmail, Amazon SES, SendGrid and SMTP. source
✓ Confirmed
Marketplace installs and rating
4K+ installs, 4.1 from 41 ratings; not updated since Dec 2022. source
What users like
Quick setup: 'so quick and easy' to set up in Sheets
Simplicity: 'It makes sending emails simple.'
Deliverability and founder responsiveness: emails hit primary inbox
What users complain about
Missing features: 'Most functionality isn't implemented and is falsely advertised.'
Slow bulk sending and early bugs
Requests for more providers (SendInblue 'coming soon')
How it actually charges
Free with paid features; sold via a $193 lifetime deal and (per AlternativeTo) $17-$100/mo subscriptions; not on the TrustMRR revenue dashboard.
Lifetime deal (Gumroad) $193
Subscription (per AlternativeTo) $17-$100/mo
Site pricing section no prices listed
Talked about
AlternativeTo: Listed by Sanskar Tiwari; Gmail/SES/SendGrid/SMTP, Twilio SMS 'coming soon'.
Competitors
YAMM, GMass, Mailmeteor: established Sheets/Gmail mail-merge tools (named without checking listings; not researched)
So what: SendSimple is an early, low-traction product (4K+ installs, listing not updated since Dec 2022, absent from the revenue dashboard) that looks dormant, though the site still loads with a 2024 copyright. Sheets mail merge is a mature category with entrenched tools, so it is a weak clone target.
Our take
How we'd do it better: Mail merge is proven demand; compete on price and simplicity (YAMM-style tools charge per seat).
Risks: Gmail sending limits and Google OAuth verification for restricted scopes.
AI tool directories: Listed on topai.tools, sourceforge, aitoolsguide and others with a generic 'custom ChatGPT chatbot' description; no discussion found.
Competitors
SiteGPT: ChatGPT chatbot for websites
ContextGPT: answers visitor questions using your own data (Product Hunt)
Intercom Fin, Chatbase and many others in a saturated 'train ChatGPT on your docs' category
So what: MagicChat is a failed entry into the crowded 'chatbot on your docs' market: $2.6k lifetime and zero subscribers now, despite a refreshed 2026 site with an email inbox, a CLI and MCP-style integrations. It is a warning that cloning a category with well-funded leaders doesn't work without distribution.
Our take
How we'd do it better: Skip: a crowded category where even he reached only $2.6k total.
Risks: Commoditized; heavy competition.
Clone potential
Difficulty
The playbook
Every tactic from the video, from first idea to growth. Tap a timestamp to hear it in their words.
ideaWhere ideas come from
Adjacent-platform expansion
After an add-on works on one Google Workspace app, build the same idea for the next one (Sheets, then Slides, then Forms).
▶ 12:28One of his Instagram posts: 'new platforms are where the leverage is'.
Bet on uncrowded platforms
His Instagram post: one Google Workspace app opened a whole platform; he launched 7-8 products there and one hit a million users. Find a platform nobody is crowding, build with Claude, ship.
