Price spread index: how much the same product varies between shops
A periodic snapshot from Pricemancer's own collection infrastructure. Every figure below is computed from live listings — no estimates, no survey, no vendor-supplied numbers.
Snapshot generated: · Data collected within 45 days
29.9%Median price spread for the same product
Half of all products found in more than one shop vary by more than this between the cheapest and the most expensive offer.
42Shops observed
434,334Listings with a live price
12,518Products found in 2+ shops
7,805Products varying by 20% or more
1,751Products priced within 5% everywhere
70.4%Listings in stock
What the numbers say
- The median spread is 29.9% but the mean is 62.4% — a heavily right-skewed distribution. A small share of products differ wildly and drag the average far above what a typical shopper encounters.
- 62% of products (7,805 of them) vary by 20% or more between the cheapest and dearest shop. These are not promotions — this is the price difference for the same article at the same moment.
- Only 14% of products (1,751) are priced within 5% everywhere. The assumption that the market prices itself into line is not supported by the data.
- At the 90th percentile the spread reaches 135.4% — meaning for one product in ten, the most expensive offer is more than double the cheapest.
- 70.4% of listings are in stock. The rest stay published at a price you cannot actually buy, which is why price should never be read without availability.
Spread by brand
Brands with enough multi-shop products for a median to mean something. Median low price is the cheapest offer for a typical product of that brand.
| Brand | Products | Median spread | Median lowest price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philips | 317 | 22.1% | 58.99 |
| Essence | 256 | 10% | 2.6 |
| Xiaomi | 185 | 14.4% | 65 |
| Lattafa | 180 | 34.7% | 22.14 |
| Nivea | 180 | 37.9% | 4.13 |
| Samsung | 153 | 9.7% | 405.9 |
| Philips-Avent | 148 | 5.2% | 9.68 |
| Hama | 147 | 15.7% | 15.33 |
| Catrice | 142 | 27.7% | 3.08 |
| Revolution | 129 | 42.7% | 5.73 |
| Clarins | 119 | 52.2% | 28.5 |
| Guerlain | 111 | 26.8% | 78.4 |
Method, and what this is not
- Products are identified by EAN barcode. Only products found in at least two distinct domains, with a price collected in the last 45 days, are compared.
- Grouping is by domain, not by shop record. The same shop can exist in several customer accounts; counting records rather than domains would make one shop look like five and drive the measured spread artificially to zero.
- 25 groups were discarded because the dearest offer exceeded the cheapest by more than 10×. That almost always means a barcode shared across pack sizes, not a real bargain.
- Brands whose median spread exceeds 150% are withheld. At that level the barcode grouping is untrustworthy for the brand rather than the market being genuinely that volatile.
- This is not a representative sample of e-commerce. Coverage reflects the shops this infrastructure observes — weighted towards perfumery, cosmetics, toys and household goods. Do not read it as national statistics.
- Figures are aggregate by construction. No individual shop's prices are published, and nothing about who monitors whom is disclosed.
See the spread on your own catalog
The same collection engine behind these figures runs on your products. The free plan is enough to measure your own market.
Start free