LaunchAmp.eu's answer:

Because there is no measurement behind the alternatives.

Launch advice is either a checklist written from memory or a directory that wants your submission. Neither has counted anything. We can tell you what a placement cost on the days we measured, and we tell you which days those were and how many of them there are.

Because it happens before the launch. After launch day, everything is observation. The one point at which the outcome can still change is the week before, and that is where the kit sits.

Because you pay after we accept. Nothing is charged until we confirm we can make your date, and we take a limited number a week. A kit that arrives after your launch is worth nothing, so a date we cannot make gets declined instead of sold.

Because it will tell you not to. The kit is allowed to say your reach is too small for the room you picked, or that this launch should wait. A service that always says "looks good" is worthless in exactly the community its customers live in.

Because you are not left with homework. Every other answer to "how do I launch well" ends with a list of things for you to go and write. This one ends with them written: the tagline in two lengths, the description, the topics, the products yours is positioned against and the first comment, in the format the platform's form wants. You paste and post.

Because nothing here is a subscription. A launch is an event. Both products are bought once and nothing renews.

And on the after-launch half: take Product Hunt's free badge if the number is all you want. They hand one out that carries the live upvote count, and we verified against their API that it matches. What it does not carry is the comments, the rating, or any placement below the top few of a day — that is what Launch Proof is for, at 12,99 € once.

LaunchAmp.eu's answer:

It started as the smaller half of what it is now: a launch produces proof for about 48 hours and then goes quiet, and almost every founder leaves it on someone else's website. Building that turned into a long argument with the temptation to fake things. The first version printed "[Your customer review will appear here]" on a quote card and turned URL slugs into product names — it would have shipped a card reading "PAZI 2" for a product called Pazi. Everything invented came out, and what replaced it was a rule: if the data is not there, say so.

The rule cost features. Comment authors had to be dropped entirely once we verified that Product Hunt's API anonymises them, because a guessed name would attribute a real sentence to the wrong person. Reach and conversion claims came off every page because we could not measure them.

Then in August 2026 Product Hunt started handing out a free badge carrying the live upvote count. Measured the same day, it matched their API exactly. Half of what the paid product argued for was suddenly free, and four pages on this site said "ours updates, theirs does not". They were rewritten within hours, including one that now tells the reader to take Product Hunt's badge if the number is all they want.

That was the useful shock. The thing we had built quietly along the way — a record of every launch day, read after it closed — turned out to be the part nobody else had. Counting the second platform showed the real finding: the platforms are not variations of each other, they are different orders of magnitude, and a launch that would vanish in one can win another with the same audience. Most of the work was finding out which platforms can be measured at all; several well-known ones cannot, and are not in the tables for that reason rather than for a flattering one.

So the site turned around. The measurement is the business now, the launch written out of it is what is sold, and the proof embeds are the small thing at the other end of the same launch.

Two things changed again in August 2026, and both were us admitting something. The tables had been kept private, on the reasoning that the research was the product — but a table nobody can see cannot bring anybody to the site, and the people who most need a launch kit are invisible until they launch, which means they can only ever arrive rather than be found. So the tables went public: four platforms, named, with what a placement costs on each.

And the product itself stopped being a written verdict. Telling a founder what is wrong with their tagline hands the writing back to the person who already wrote it once and did not like the result. Now it comes written — for the platform the numbers picked, in the shape that platform's form wants. Same analysis underneath, same price. What changed is who does the work afterwards.

LaunchAmp.eu's answer:

We count the launch days ourselves — and then we write your launch out of the numbers.

Every piece of launch advice you can find assumes the room is already decided and argues about the furniture — the date, the tagline, the thumbnail. But launch platforms differ by more than an order of magnitude in how many products they take a day and in what a visible placement costs there. With the reach a founder can actually bring, one of those rooms is winnable and the others are not. That is the decision that matters most, it is made once, and almost nobody makes it deliberately, because almost nobody has counted.

So we count. Every launch day, on several launch platforms, read after it has closed and kept: how big the field was, what the winner scored, what each placement down the ranking cost. One more day on file every day. It is not a survey, not an estimate and not a round number from a blog post — it is the day as it happened.

The tables themselves are public and free — the four platforms by name, the size of each field, what a top placement cost. What the paid Launch Kit adds is the reading of them against one specific product, and then the launch written out of that reading: given the reach you have, this is the room you can place in, this is what your date is worth, and here is the tagline, the description, the topics and the first comment, ready to paste. Sometimes the answer is to wait until you have a list, and that answer gets sent too

LaunchAmp.eu's answer:

Solo founders and small teams about to launch — indie hackers, bootstrapped SaaS, developer tools — plus everyone planning a second attempt at a launch that went quietly the first time.

The common situation is narrow and it is worth stating plainly: you get one launch day, you get one shot at the room and the date, and nobody has told you what the field looks like. 676 products enter Product Hunt on a typical measured day. Being featured took 133 upvotes. Rank 100 sits at five. Most launches therefore finish in single digits, and most of what decides that was settled in the week before — by a founder nobody gave the numbers to, writing the tagline and the first comment alone, at eleven at night, the day before.

That includes — in fact especially — founders whose last launch disappointed them. The free launch check often shows a launch its owner had written off finishing ahead of 80% of its day. The kit exists so the next one is aimed at a room it can win, and so the founder does not have to write it alone.

LaunchAmp.eu's answer:

PHP 8 with PDO on MySQL/MariaDB — no framework, no build step on the server. Product Hunt's GraphQL API v2 for launch data, and the public APIs of several other launch platforms for the daily measurement, aggregated into our own tables. Stripe Checkout for payments. PHP GD with FreeType renders the social graphics server-side. The embeds are 34 KB of vanilla JavaScript with no dependencies and no cookies. Tailwind CSS is compiled and committed; Alpine.js is self-hosted. Hosted in Germany.

The self-hosting is deliberate rather than incidental: public pages make zero third-party requests, so no visitor's IP address is handed to a CDN and no consent banner is needed on any page we serve.

LaunchAmp.eu's answer:

LaunchAmp is newly launched and has no customers to name yet.