Do you need a co-founder? An honest answer for solo founders
Almost every solo founder I talk to has the same nagging thought: should I have a co-founder?
Sometimes it comes from investors, who ask about it in the first meeting. Sometimes it comes from loneliness, because building alone is hard. Sometimes it comes from a real gap, like a product you can’t build or customers you don’t know how to reach.
I’ve co-founded three companies, and I now back and advise early-stage founders. The honest answer is that it depends. But it depends on a few specific things, and most founders can work out which side they’re on.
Solo is not a red flag, but it raises questions
Plenty of strong companies were started by one person. Being solo doesn’t disqualify you.
What it does is prompt questions, and investors will ask them whether or not they say so out loud. Who covers the things you’re weak at? What happens if you burn out or get stuck? Can you attract talented people to work with you?
If you have good answers, being solo is fine. If you don’t, that’s the problem to solve, and a co-founder is only one way to solve it.
Bad reasons to get a co-founder
Before the good reasons, the ones I’d push back on.
Because investors seem to want one. If you bring in a co-founder to tick a box, you’ve taken on the biggest long-term relationship of your working life to answer one investor question. That’s a poor trade.
Because you’re lonely. Loneliness is real, and it’s a good reason to find peers, advisors and a community. It’s a terrible reason to hand someone a large slice of your company.
Because you’re in a hurry. Founders who rush the decision tend to pick someone convenient, not someone right. Convenient co-founders are the ones who become expensive problems two years later.
Because you want to split the work. Dividing tasks is what hiring is for. A co-founder should add something you can’t, not just take things off your plate.
Good reasons to get a co-founder
You have a real capability gap you can’t fill another way. If you can’t build the product and can’t afford to hire someone who can, that’s a genuine gap. The same goes for a technical founder with no idea how to sell.
You’d make better decisions with a true equal. Some founders think best with someone who can challenge them at the same level and share the weight of the calls.
The business needs two full-time people from day one. Some companies simply can’t be built by one person, however good they are.
I’ve successfully built and exited 3 startups, and I had a co-founder in all 3 of them. I’ve also personally invested in over 100 startups, and 80% of the ones that have failed were run by solo founders…
If you do find one, take it slowly
A co-founder relationship is hard to undo, and the cost of getting it wrong is high. A few things I’d insist on:
Work together before you commit. Do a small project, or work through a few real problems together, before you talk equity. You learn more about someone in weeks of working than in months of coffee chats.
Talk about the uncomfortable things early. Time commitment, money, what happens if one of you wants out, who has the final say on what. These conversations are far easier before anything has gone wrong.
Use vesting. Splitting equity with nothing tying it to ongoing contribution is how companies end up with a co-founder who left in year one and still owns a large chunk. Speak to a lawyer about structuring it properly.
The options in between
The choice isn’t only “find a co-founder” or “stay completely alone”. There’s a middle ground.
Stay solo and build a strong support network. Advisors, mentors and peer founders can cover a lot of what a co-founder would, without equity or a lasting commitment.
Bring in contractors or early hires. If your gap is a skill, you can often buy it. Hire for it, perhaps with a small equity stake, without making that person a co-founder.
Work with a fractional co-founder. This is what I do with some founders. I work alongside you as an active strategic partner on a defined amount of time each month, across strategy, fundraising and operations, without the commitment of a full-time co-founder. It suits solo founders who need more than occasional advice but aren’t ready, or don’t want, to give up a large part of the company.
I’ll be straightforward about where it doesn’t fit. If your business needs two full-time builders, or you want someone who will be in the trenches every day, a fractional arrangement isn’t a replacement. It’s a way to get senior thinking and hands-on support, not a second founder.
A few questions to ask yourself
What specifically can’t I do, and can I solve it another way?
Would I want to work with this person through the worst year of the company?
Am I looking for a co-founder, or just for support?
If I stayed solo, who would challenge me and keep me honest?
If your answer to the last question is “nobody”, that’s the gap to fix first, whether through a co-founder, an advisor or someone in between.
The honest version
Most founders don’t need to rush this. A good co-founder can make a company, and a bad one can end it. If you’re unsure, the right move is usually to get proper support around you and build for a while until you know exactly what you’re missing.
If you’re a solo founder wondering which route fits, apply for a free intro call and I’ll give you my honest view. You can also read more about working with me as a fractional co-founder.
Related: What investors actually look for in a pitch deck and How to raise your first pre-seed round
About the author
Chad Stephens is an angel investor and startup advisor at Kenobe Ventures. He works with pre-seed and seed stage founders on strategy, capital raising, and building the right foundations early.
