Problem & Value Proposition

Agencies and SaaS teams repeatedly complain that non-technical clients send incomplete or low-quality bug reports ( “the page is broken” ). Developers then waste hours reproducing the issue, asking for browser/OS, console errors, etc. A widget that lets the end-user click, annotate the screen and automatically attaches technical context (browser, viewport, console log, network errors, DOM, user id) solves a clear, recurring pain.

Market signals

• Reddit r/agency, r/webdev, r/QualityAssurance, and Indie Hackers regularly feature threads asking “How do you collect client QA feedback?”. The linked thread (r/agency 1i5ad6o) has 60+ comments; top answers mention Marker.io, Usersnap, BugHerd, BirdEatsBug – clear proof teams are already paying for this class of tool.
• Product Hunt launches for Marker.io (2 600 up-votes), Bird Eats Bug (1 200), Ruttl (900) show strong interest.
• Many agencies list these tools in their public tech stack pages.

Existing competitors (first page of Google for “visual bug reporting”)

1. marker.io – pricing $59–$149/mo
2. bugherd.com – pricing $39–$199/mo
3. usersnap.com – pricing $69–$949/mo
4. birdeatsbug.com –...