DickSaaS

1. AI SaaS infra advisor for indie builders

• Problem: Indie builders and small teams doing AI SaaS MVPs are overwhelmed by infra choices and free-tier quirks. They piece together advice from random threads and risk nasty surprises in cost, cold starts, or GPU availability.
• Possible SaaS: An AI SaaS infra advisor that takes in stack and traffic assumptions and recommends a concrete deployment plan (provider mix, regions, instance types, cost projections). Includes templates for common patterns (chat app, async batch tool, API SaaS) and monitors usage against the original plan.
• Monetization: $19–$49/month for solo and indie plans, with higher tiers for teams that want multiple projects and alerts ("you are about to fall out of the free tier"). Potential affiliate revenue from cloud partners if done transparently.
• Risks / Concerns: Cloud providers change pricing and free-tier limits often; must keep advice up to date. Many devs are used to free docs and community advice and may hesitate to pay; the product has to save enough time and mistakes to justify a subscription.

2. SaaS boilerplate chooser and migration guide

• Problem: Builders keep asking which SaaS boilerplate or starter kit to use. There are many options (Next.js, Rails, Laravel, etc.), each with tradeoffs, and switching later is painful. People make decisions off random threads instead of structured comparisons.
• Possible SaaS: A decision tool that asks about stack preference, auth and payments needs, complexity, and budget, then ranks boilerplates with pros and cons and real-world examples. It includes playbooks for migrating away ("if you outgrow this, here is how painful it will be").
• Monetization: $9–$29 one-time for comparison reports or $15–$25/month for a subscription that includes updates, discounts, and migration guides. Affiliate revenue from boilerplate sellers is possible but should be clearly disclosed to avoid bias concerns.
• Risks / Concerns: Many devs expect this kind of info for free; must offer clear extra value (fresh, opinionated comparisons, migration guides, and bundled discounts). Also risks being perceived as biased if monetized through affiliates.

3. Enterprise auth provider finder

• Problem: SaaS teams needing SSO, SCIM, and compliance get lost between Auth0, WorkOS, Stytch, Keycloak, and bespoke setups. Each has different pricing, feature completeness, and integration depth; mistakes are expensive and hard to unwind.
• Possible SaaS: A focused enterprise auth advisor that profiles your SaaS (user counts, target customers, compliance requirements, protocols needed) and scores providers by fit, cost, and integration complexity. It could also offer boilerplate code and checklists for whichever provider you choose.
• Monetization: $49–$149 one-time per project or $39/month for ongoing access and updates as you add more enterprise customers. Potential referral or partner deals with auth providers if structured carefully.
• Risks / Concerns: Niche but high-stakes decision; some teams prefer direct sales and support from auth vendors. Value must be obviously higher than just reading docs and asking in Slack communities.

4. Tool question watcher for founders

• Problem: Founders constantly miss "is there a tool that…" and "any recommendations for…" posts that match their product. Tracking them manually is impossible, and generic social listening tools are not tuned to SaaS discovery questions.
• Possible SaaS: A tool question watcher that monitors X for intent phrases, clusters them by topic, and alerts founders when questions match their product. It can also show historical patterns, like how often this problem comes up and how people currently solve it.
• Monetization: $29–$99/month depending on number of tracked topics or keywords and alert volume. Higher tiers for agencies monitoring multiple products.
• Risks / Concerns: Must be very sharp on filtering spam and noise; otherwise signals drown. Long-term viability depends on X access policy; also overlaps somewhat with existing social listening tools, so the niche focus on "tool questions" has to be obvious.

5. Research assistant for LLM tool landscape

• Problem: Builders and consultants waste time researching which LLM tools, APIs, and wrappers to use for a given use case. The landscape changes weekly, and "best practices" become stale quickly.
• Possible SaaS: A research assistant that continuously scans docs, benchmarks, and community chatter for major LLM platforms and tools. Users describe their use case and constraints (latency, budget, data sensitivity), and the system returns a recommended stack and reasoning and keeps it updated over time.
• Monetization: $39–$149/month for teams doing regular evaluations and client work; potential enterprise tier for consultancies and agencies.
• Risks / Concerns: Hard to keep recommendations unbiased and fresh; may be challenging to get ground-truth performance data versus marketing claims. Needs a strong UX to avoid feeling like just another AI chatbot on top of docs.