Grips Intelligence in-store data covering January 1 through August 31, 2026 across menards.com, Amazon, acehardware.com, homedepot.com and lowes.com shows Rug Doctor concentrating nearly all of its measured revenue in just three retailers. Menards leads with a 39.8% revenue share, narrowly ahead of Amazon at 33.7%, while acehardware.com contributes 22.5% and leaves Home Depot (2.5%) and Lowe's (1.5%) as minor contributors. Momentum has been positive over the June–August window, with revenue up 12.8% across the period and a 7.2% month-over-month gain in the latest month. Pricing has firmed modestly alongside that growth, with the average price reaching $34.81 in the most recent month, a 2.6% monthly increase and 1.5% higher than the start of the period. Against a year-to-date average price of $33.40, the combination of rising volume and slightly higher price points suggests the brand's retail mix is skewing toward premium offerings rather than discounting.
OVER TIME
Over the last three months, revenue on tracked channels has grew by 13% from Jun to Aug.
OVER TIME
Over the last three months, average selling price on tracked channels has increased by 1% from Jun to Aug.
REVENUE SHARE
Revenue distribution across product categories for Rug Doctor on Ace Hardware.
REVENUE SHARE
Revenue distribution across tracked channels for Rug Doctor.
BY REVENUE
Rug Doctor sells 38% online and 62% offline. Online runs through 3 channels; offline through 2.
Online
38%
62%
Offline
Online channels
38%
Offline channels
62%
BY REVIEW COUNT
Across 97K ratings on 5 channels, Rug Doctor averages 4.5★. Most reviews for the products are in the 4.6–4.8 range.
BRAND AVERAGE
4.5
/ 5
From 97K ratings
Products are bracketed by their average rating, so all of an individual product's reviews fall into one bracket. This isn't a per-star breakdown of individual reviews.
BY REVENUE
$524.10
Price
$399K
Revenue
$534.83
Price
$322K
Revenue
$448.60
Price
$128K
Revenue
$149.99
Price
Revenue
$329.99
Price
Revenue
$89.99
Price
Revenue
Get access to full product performance analysis