What do you use today instead of ProofBench (https://proofben.ch/) (a competitor, a spreadsheet, doing it by hand)? Compared with that, what would make ProofBench better or worse for you, and what would keep you on your current option? Also say the maximum you would pay per month in USD (0 if nothing).

Milton Yundtpositive

Right now, I'm primarily using a combination of custom landing pages built with a low-code tool and Google Analytics, plus a spreadsheet to track signups and button clicks. The data-driven approach ProofBench offers, especially focusing on the 'intent rate' and ranking ideas, sounds compelling. It seems to cut through the vanity metrics I sometimes get lost in. The ability to integrate with coding agents is also interesting for quick tests. The pricing structure of a one-time payment instead of a subscription is definitely a plus for me. I'd be willing to pay up to $49 for a lifetime deal, given it offers unlimited live pages.

Simulated interest: 85/100

Dianna Sawayn-Satterfieldpositive

Today, I use Google Sheets to meticulously track campaign performance for our side product line. I tag traffic sources and analyze conversion by audience to validate problem statements and pricing. ProofBench's focus on measuring actual intent, like buy-clicks, rather than just views, is compelling. It would be better than Sheets if it automated the data aggregation and presented these intent rates clearly, saving me manual cross-referencing. What would make it worse is if the setup was complex or if the data wasn't easily exportable for my Sheets dashboards. The main thing keeping me on Sheets is its flexibility and integration with my existing workflow. I'd consider paying $29 per month for a streamlined intent measurement tool.

Simulated interest: 80/100

Dhananjay Jhaneutral

Currently, I use spreadsheets and manual tracking for my validation sites. ProofBench seems to offer a more streamlined way to measure intent, especially the 'buy-click' signal, which is crucial. The idea of quickly launching a test page and getting ranked ideas is appealing. However, I'm not entirely clear on how it integrates with my existing workflow or if it handles custom landing page designs beyond templates. The pricing model of a one-time payment is good, I would pay $30 one-time for a lifetime deal.

Simulated interest: 70/100

Vera Bussmannneutral

We currently use a dedicated platform for landing page tests to validate our internal admin tool concept. What interests me about ProofBench is its focus on "real signal" and "buy-intent" rather than just views. This aligns with our need to distinguish genuine interest from mere curiosity. The "fake-door" concept is particularly relevant. I'd need to understand how it integrates with our existing workflow and if it offers the same depth of analytics we currently rely on. The pricing model, a one-time payment rather than a subscription, is also appealing given our bootstrapping situation.

Simulated interest: 60/100

Jermaine Herzogneutral

Currently, my team and I manage this process manually using spreadsheets and a bit of creative form building for our landing pages. It's labour-intensive but gives us granular control. ProofBench's appeal lies in its dedicated focus on conversion and intent rates, cutting through the vanity metrics we sometimes get bogged down with. The pricing model is interesting; the one-time payment is a significant advantage over recurring subscriptions. However, I'd need to see how it integrates with our existing workflows. The idea of paying $49 for a year of unlimited live pages is tempting, but I'd need to evaluate the usage against that. I'm hesitant to commit without understanding the ongoing value and how it scales with multiple client projects. I would consider paying $150 per year for something that significantly streamlines this validation process across multiple client projects.

Simulated interest: 40/100

Luz McDermottneutral

Right now, I'm using a combination of Carrd for landing pages, Tally for sign-ups, and Google Sheets to track and rank ideas. I also run small ad tests. ProofBench looks interesting because it specifically measures buy-intent, which is a much stronger signal than just views. That focus on real demand is what my current setup lacks. The "build for free, pay once to go live" model with a $29 one-time fee is appealing, especially for side projects. I'm not sure if I'd pay more than $29 per year for this, as my budget for validation tools is really tight, and I'm used to free tiers.

Simulated interest: 70/100

Divakar Sutharpositive

Right now, we're using a mix of manual tracking in spreadsheets and some basic landing page builders. We're meticulously comparing email capture and demo requests from LinkedIn and cold emails. ProofBench's focus on conversion and buy-intent rate sounds promising for validating ideas faster, which is exactly what we need. The main concern would be if the setup or integration takes too much time away from our current validation experiments. The lifetime deal for $49 seems like a reasonable one-time investment if it delivers on its promise.

Simulated interest: 75/100

Aymardine Gonzalezneutral

Today, I manually log conversions, scroll depth, and replies into a spreadsheet after every test. My current process is free, but it's time-consuming. ProofBench's ability to automate the creation and tracking of test pages, especially with its focus on 'buy-intent' signals rather than just vanity views, is compelling. The integration with AI coding agents is also interesting for efficiency. However, the concept of a one-time payment for an annual pass or lifetime deal is not ideal for my iterative, experimental approach; I prefer pay-as-you-go or a low monthly cost for ongoing experimentation. I would consider paying around $20 per month, but the current pricing model seems to be a one-time purchase.

Simulated interest: 60/100

Hein Verhoevenneutral

Currently, I'm building landing pages in Webflow or Framer and then manually tracking conversion data, or using basic analytics. What ProofBench offers, particularly the focus on 'buy intent' rather than just views, is intriguing. The idea of a fake-door test and ranking ideas based on that is a more robust signal than I'm getting now. The MCP integration with coding agents is also interesting for faster prototyping. However, the pricing structure is a bit unusual. I typically look for tools with monthly subscriptions for flexibility, and while a one-time payment is appealing for long-term value, it requires a larger upfront investment. I'd need to see how it fits into my workflow and budget. For a lifetime deal that covers future updates, I might consider up to $79, but I'm hesitant to pay upfront without more context on ongoing support or potential feature limitations.

Simulated interest: 60/100

Susie Feestneutral

Today, I use spreadsheets and manual tracking for my landing page tests. ProofBench's focus on conversion and buy-intent rates is its main advantage over vanity metrics. The "fake-door test" concept is interesting. However, I'm skeptical of paying for anything before validating ROI. The one-time payment model is appealing, but I need to see the actual tool in action before committing. I'd need to test it myself for a month to see if it genuinely saves time and provides actionable data for my specific workflow. My maximum acceptable price would be $29 per month.

Simulated interest: 40/100