I listed a complete pre-revenue product on 5 marketplaces. Here’s what happened.
A few days ago I decided to sell AIbridge, a complete multi-model AI product with a web app, local-first CLI, provider handoffs and reusable workflows.
So far I’ve listed it on several acquisition marketplaces, launched it on Product Hunt and contacted a small group of AI agencies directly.
The main lesson so far is that selling a technically complete product is very different from selling a business with revenue.
Most marketplaces give a short visibility window, but once the listing moves down, discovery drops quickly. Direct outreach seems more promising, although it is still early.
AIbridge is currently pre-revenue and listed at $5,000. The sale includes the codebase, domain, brand, CLI, tests, billing infrastructure and transfer documentation.
For founders who have sold pre-revenue products:
What actually generated the buyer conversation — marketplaces, direct outreach, communities or price changes?
AIbridge:
https://tryaibridge.com
The visibility window point matches what I have heard from a few people who tried selling pre revenue tools. Direct outreach to a tightly defined list of buyers who already work in that exact niche tends to beat broad listings, mainly because the buyer already understands the value without you needing to explain the category first. Curious whether the AI agencies you contacted directly turned into warmer conversations than the Product Hunt traffic, since Product Hunt visitors often want to try something free rather than acquire a codebase outright.
That matches what I’m starting to see as well.
Product Hunt generated attention, but not necessarily acquisition intent. The direct outreach is still very early, but the agencies are a better fit because they can immediately understand how AIbridge could be used as a white-label product, internal tool or foundation for client work.
I’ve contacted six AI agencies so far and I’m planning to compare the response rate with the marketplace and Product Hunt traffic over the next few days.
Thanks for confirming that this is probably the right direction.
Good luck with the agency conversations. One pattern worth watching for is whether the fastest yes comes from an agency that already has a client asking for something similar, since the value is proven before you even speak. If that pocket of urgency shows up in any of the six, I would expect the response rate to skew heavily toward them rather than being evenly spread.
That makes sense.
The strongest fit is probably not an agency that simply likes the product, but one that already has a client asking for multi-model workflows, provider comparison or a white-label AI workspace.
I’ll pay attention not only to the response rate, but also to how quickly they reply and whether they mention an existing client need.
That urgency signal would probably be more valuable than broad interest.
Good luck narrowing it down. If you want a shortcut on top of watching response speed, ask the ones who reply fast what they are currently duct taping together to cover multi-model workflows, the answer will tell you how urgent the need actually is before you get to price.
That’s a very useful way to qualify the interest.
Instead of immediately discussing the acquisition price, I’ll ask fast responders how they currently handle multi-model workflows, provider switching and client-facing AI tools.
If they are already combining separate tools or building temporary integrations for clients, that would show a real operational need rather than general curiosity.
Thanks — I’ll use that in the next conversations.
Good luck with those conversations. One thing worth tracking once you start asking that question, whether the duct taped workaround is something they built themselves or something they are paying someone else to maintain. The second case usually means a bigger budget is already unlocked for the problem.
That’s a really useful distinction.
If they already built a workaround internally, AIbridge mainly saves development time.
But if they’re already paying someone to maintain a multi-provider setup or similar workflow, then there’s an existing budget and a much clearer acquisition case.
I’m going to start asking that directly in the outreach:
“Are you currently handling this internally, or are you already paying someone to build/maintain something similar?”
That should help me identify the companies with actual buying intent rather than just general interest.
That question also splits the group by urgency, not only budget. Someone maintaining a manual workaround already knows the cost of the gap, someone paying an outside person has usually justified the spend once already. I would watch for a third answer too, the ones who say neither and just live with the mess, since that answer alone tells you the pain has not crossed the line into being worth solving yet. Good luck with the outreach, report back on how the three groups split.
No, I haven't personally bought or sold one, so treat this as an outsider's framework rather than experience talking. But the budget signal you're describing is real: people already paying for a workaround move faster than people who just like an idea.
That’s a good point.
The third group is probably the most useful filter of all: if they’re neither maintaining something internally nor paying someone externally, the problem may simply not be painful enough yet.
So I’ll treat the outreach less as “would you buy this?” and more as a way to identify which companies already have the problem and an existing budget around it.
I’ll report back once I have enough replies to see how those three groups actually split.
By the way, have you personally bought or sold software products before, or do you advise founders on acquisitions?