Chocolate.com vs Capital.com

21

Earlier today, Sedo announced that it secured the exclusive brokerage listing for Chocolate.com,unarguably one of the best food-related domain names. Domain Holdings announced that it had secured the listing for a great financial domain name, Capital.com.

If you had the funds to purchase one of these domain names at fair market value, which would you prefer to own and operate?

 

21 COMMENTS

  1. They’re both excellent domains, but there are a lot of great domains on the market now at much lower asking prices.

    Millions can go a long way scooping up type-in traffic 5 and 6 figure domain names with bargain prices in this current buyers market.

  2. In all seriousness if you were to pit chocolate.com against capital.com and neither one had a prior business history than it’s a no brainer to go for chocolate.com. Capital.com doesn’t have the ability to go for retail sales like chocolate.com does.

  3. Both are fine names.
    But this is very easy.
    Chocolate.com is the winner.

    CPC is much higher and people eat it everyday as opposed to capital.com

    This comes down to numbers and life time value of a visitor. You may get 50 orders over of a lifetime of a chocolate customer. You will not get that with capital.

    Just ask the people that own candy.com

    DonnyM

  4. I would probably purchase Capital.com over Chocolate.com, even though I do agree with you Elliot about it being fun to own Chocolate.com. I did a Valuate.com and an Estibot.com appraisal on the two out of curiosity and both services valued Chocolate.com 1,080,000 and Capital.com $7,230,000. Although I know these appraisals aren’t completely accurate and are only estimates based on the info the appraisal service obtains or collects, it’s fun and interesting to see the values of such premium domains appraised by different services. Best of luck to both Sedo and Domain Holdings on selling these premium key names.

    Best regards,

    Jason

    KeyDomainSales.com

  5. People seem to be overlooking the fact that chocolate.com is obviously Google penalized. We’re talking about damaged goods, that VERY few sites have recovered from. Capital.com, on the other hand, appears to be clean. So, obviously Capital.com is the safer bet.

  6. I don’t remember ever seeing the word “unarguably” used (I would have thought the word “arguably” should have been used in that sentence). Did a quick dictionary check. Oddly, you could use EITHER unarguably OR arguably, and the meaning of the scentence remains the same!

    Thanks for the new word! šŸ™‚

    __________________________

    ~~ Arguable / Arguably ~~

    1. capable of being disputed; doubtful
    2. capable of being supported by argument; plausible
    (source: Collins English Dictionary)

    1. Open to argument (an arguable question; still unresolved)
    2. Capable of being argued plausibly; defensible in argument
    (source: The American HeritageĀ® Dictionary)

    […interestingly, it can be used to describe something as both ‘indisputable / unquestionable / undeniable’ OR oppositely as ‘questionable / debateable / dubious’.]

    __________________________

    ~~ Unarguable / Unarguably ~~

    1. incapable of being argued
    2. incontestable; indisputable
    (source: Collins English Dictionary)

    1. Not open to argument or further discussion (the plain; unarguable facts)
    (source: The American HeritageĀ® Dictionary)

    Steve

  7. Smarter strategy would be to go after the plural Chocolates.com which is sitting on a parked page.

    The plural is more logical sounding for an ecommerce site and you could probably acquire it for much less than the asking on the singular.

  8. Chocolate by a mile. Capital isn’t the best keyword in finance. I’m an accounting / finance professional and one of the accounts on our balance sheet has that word. But how often do I use the word capital in coversation? Rarely.

Leave a Reply