B

ISA & Pension Savings Personalized Comparison Board

2.80

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Digital financial product comparison & scam filtering
→
Step 2 Lack of neutral financial product comparison
→
Step 3 Personal tax benefit optimal combination design

Problem

For asset management in their 50s, tax-advantaged products proliferate—ISA (Individual Savings Account), pension savings funds, IRP (Individual Retirement Pension), and additional DC retirement pension contributions—each with different tax benefit limits, eligibility conditions, and early withdrawal penalties that are interconnected. Bank and brokerage consultations are biased toward selling their own products, making neutral comparison impossible. Comparing independently requires cross-referencing regulations from three agencies (Financial Supervisory Service, National Tax Service, Korea Financial Investment Association) and takes over half a day.

Solution

On a web app: (1) enter annual income, currently enrolled products, and investment preferences to calculate projected tax benefits for ISA, pension savings, and IRP individually, (2) view comparison charts showing after-tax payouts at 10 and 20 years for different combinations (e.g., ISA maturity rollover to pension vs. pension savings from the start), and (3) receive a 'best combination for you' recommendation. Comparison is by product type, not specific financial institution products.

Target: Ages 48-58, annual income $37,500-$75,000, interested in maximizing tax benefits, currently enrolled in only one of ISA or pension savings, or not yet enrolled
Revenue Model: Basic comparison and recommendation free. Personalized optimal combination PDF Report (including 10- and 20-year simulations) $2.25 per transaction. Annual product rebalancing alert service $7.50/year.
Ecosystem Role: Consumer
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
2.0/5
U Urgency
3.0/5
M Market
4.0/5
R Realizability
3.0/5
V Validation
3.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
SaaS N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20 Senior N=.25 U=.25 M=.05 R=.30 V=.15

Feasibility (67%)

Tech Complexity
24.0/40
Data Availability
23.1/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (55/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
14.0/20
Revenue Signals
9.0/15
Pick-Axe Fit
10.5/15
Solo Buildability
7.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Frontend [medium] Backend [medium]
Dashboard