Piperic
similar sites
‹ ProfileAI ReportTools

Sites similar to namansr.com

Naman Sarawagi – Product. Marketing. Startups. · ranked by shared content topics & relevance
70match
agiletalks.org
Agile Talks - Startups, Product and Software development
1 shared topicsstartups
69match
juuchini.com
JUUCHINI – TECHNOLOGY | STARTUPS | CLIMATE
1 shared topicsstartups
68match
buikus.com
Buikus - Digital product designer
1 shared topicsstartups
68match
corvanus.com
Corvanus — We Build Startups That Ship
1 shared topicsstartups
68match
simontran.com
Simon Tran – Product Design Leader
1 shared topicsstartups
67match
craigcalderone.com
Craig Calderone Thoughts – Startups, tech, and dogs
1 shared topicsstartups
67match
100daystartup.com
The 80-Day Startup – From 0 to customers in 80 days
1 shared topicsstartups
67match
hitstartup.com
hitstartup
1 shared topicsstartups
67match
3dprintedstartup.com
The 3D Printed Startup
1 shared topicsstartups
67match
lowtechstartup.com
Low Tech Startup
1 shared topicsstartups
67match
buildtheproduct.com
Build The Product – Patterns for Product Success
1 shared topicsstartups
67match
buildpluto.com
BuildPluto — Premium Product Studio for Startups
1 shared topicsstartups
67match
abiolaajibola.dev
Abiola Ajibola | Product Engineer for Non-Technical Founders and Startups
1 shared topicsstartups
66match
100startups.com
100 Startups: Nurturing Entrepreneurship
1 shared topicsstartups
66match
buckethatsworld.com
Prisma – Digital Startup & App WordPress Theme
1 shared topicsstartups
66match
100startupschallenge.com
100 Startups Challenge
1 shared topicsstartups
66match
100startupschallange.com
100 Startups Challenge
1 shared topicsstartups
66match
andybaldacci.com
Helping B2B SaaS Startups Grow
1 shared topicsstartups

How the match score works

Each match is a 0–100 similarity score — the higher it is, the more two sites resemble one another. It’s computed automatically from our own crawl data (never from what a site says about itself) by combining several independent signals, so a high score means several of them point the same way:

No single signal decides the result — they’re blended together. Treat the score as a way to rank candidates rather than an absolute percentage; the chips on each result show which signals contributed.