I built a tool that gives a verdict on your business name — not just "is it taken"
Every name-checking tool I tried answered the easy question — "is the domain/handle available?" — and none answered the hard one I actually cared about: is this name any good?
So I built ApproveIt. You enter a name, it returns a structured verdict — memorability, differentiation, category fit, pronunciation, trademark risk, longevity — plus a strategist-style take and a downloadable PDF you can show a cofounder. It's powered by GPT-4o-mini behind a Node/Express backend.
Stack, for the curious: Node + Express, SQLite, Stripe Payment Links, Nginx on a cheap VPS. Kept it deliberately simple — no user dashboard, no accounts, email-only at the paywall. One free verdict, then a gate.
What I've learned so far:
- "Available" and "good" are completely different questions. Most founders conflate them and commit to a weak-but-available name.
- Keeping the product dead simple was harder than adding features. Every "what if we also…" was a trap.
- Distribution is the real boss fight. The build was the easy part.
Genuinely curious how other founders here decided on their name — gut feel, testing, or did you just commit and move on? And for those further along: would a "name verdict" have changed anything for you early, or is it a nice-to-have?
Happy to share the build details if useful.
This is a useful problem, but I’d be careful with where the paid moment sits.
Founders care about naming, but not always at the same point. Early on, many want reassurance. Later, they want risk reduction because the name is already tied to landing pages, users, investors, or launch assets.
That difference probably matters more than adding more verdict criteria.
I would not solve it loosely in the thread because the answer changes the paywall, positioning, and who ApproveIt should speak to first.
If you’re open to it, share your email and I’ll put the tighter paid-conversion angle together properly.
That split is sharp — reassurance early vs risk-reduction once the name's already tied to assets/users/investors. You're right it hits positioning and paywall more than adding criteria does.
Right now the paywall sits at the reassurance moment (pre-commit), which might be the weaker willingness-to-pay point. Worth thinking hard about.
Happy to keep it here in the thread — what's the angle you're seeing? Genuinely interested, but I'd rather work it out in the open so others get the thread too.
You’re pointing at the exact decision I’d be careful making casually in-thread.
The useful part is not the reassurance vs risk-reduction distinction by itself. It is what that choice does to the paywall, buyer psychology, and what moment ApproveIt should actually monetize.
That tends to work better as a proper written pass than scattered thread replies.
If useful, drop your email and I’ll send the tighter version in a way you can actually use.