Is it better to be a solopreneur or co-founder?

I love the YC advice: the ideal team size for a founding team is the minimum number of people you need to make meaningful progress towards your milestones. Nowadays I use this rule to determine the best setup.

Choosing between going solo or co-founding depends on personal preferences for control versus collaboration. If you prefer autonomy and handling challenges alone, solo entrepreneurship fits best. If you value shared decision-making and diverse inputs and trust people to do better than you at some tasks, co-founding is the logical choice. 🤗

Solo.

I had been working with my friend as a co-founder for 1.5 years now working as a solo founder. I must it's tough when there is not second opinion. Different perspective matters in a startup. So, I have to talk with lots of people and customer about my product to gain their perspective

I've had co-founders in the past. While it was really amazing to have them, ultimately we had to separate due to their family pressure. Building a startup is extremely taxing.

Solo

If you're not creating a major project, being solopreneur is nice. But big projects always require a team, and as a founder, your task is to build the right team. You don't need to know everything, just find the right people and have some knowledge in every aspect. I prefer to be a co-founder. I always embark on the journey with the right people.

I am tried to become a solopreneur. Struggling but I will become one day.

انا جاهز

I have been a co-founder and now a solo founder. With other co-founders, you can do a lot more work. But you can also have more conversations leading to spending more time. As a solo-founder you act quicker, but you don't have a second opinion. PS: solo founder is different from a solopreneur

It’s interesting to know !

I am a co-founder and greatly enjoy how we complement and support each other. This journey we have chosen is better when shared. What do you say @andres_cufari ?

there are different advantages and disadvantages to being both. being a solo founder means being in full control over everything and there is no need to be in an agreement with someone, thus work flows more quickly since you don’t have to elaborate every step with someone, that’s exactly why it’s more easy to make a mistake because there is no opposition to the new ideas. being a co-founder on the other hand means that the responsibilities are split and each founder can focus on their field of expertise. also when it comes to motivation co-founders can balance each other and work through every problem together. I think being a co-founder is like being married. choosing a right person to start a business with is very important because if the relationship fails the business also fails. In my opinion, being a co-founder has more advantages. of course it varies depending on the person, but overall speaking I find it better. I also noticed that investors prefer investing into businesses with 2-3 founders rather than 1.

All a business needs is a product and a customer. If you can do both yourself, no need to split the pie. A co-founder should bring something to the table that you aren't. Duplicating efforts early is inefficient. It's like a marriage so choose your partner carefully.