"You need a co-founder."
It's the most common advice given to aspiring founders. Y Combinator prefers teams. VCs want to see partnerships. Every startup blog emphasizes the importance of having someone to share the journey with.
But what does the data actually say?
I analyzed 238 real founder stories to find out who reaches revenue milestones faster: solo founders or co-founder teams.
The results tell a nuanced story.
The Data: Teams Are Faster, But the Split Is Nearly Even
Here's what the data reveals:
| Founder Type | Stories | Avg Time to $10K MRR |
|---|---|---|
| Solo founders | 122 (51%) | 22.4 months |
| Co-founder teams | 116 (49%) | 20.4 months |
Teams reach $10K MRR 9% faster than solo founders on average — about 2 months difference.
But here's what's interesting: the split is nearly 50/50. Both paths are equally common among successful founders. Solo founding may be slightly slower on average, but it's clearly just as viable.
Why Teams Move Faster
After diving into dozens of these stories, here's what the data suggests:
1. Division of Labor
Teams can split the workload: one person builds while another sells. This parallel execution compounds quickly.
While a solo founder is context-switching between coding, marketing, and support, a team can tackle all three simultaneously.
2. Complementary Skills
Technical + business expertise is a powerful combination. Teams often bring:
- Different networks and connections
- Varied problem-solving approaches
- Broader skill coverage
Our data shows teams have a higher technical founder percentage (86%) compared to solo founders (70%).
3. Accountability
Partners keep each other accountable. It's harder to procrastinate when someone else is depending on you.
4. Resilience
Startups are emotionally taxing. Having a co-founder to share the lows (and celebrate the highs) can prevent burnout and keep momentum going.
Why Solo Founders Still Win (Just Differently)
Despite being slightly slower on average, solo founders have real advantages:
1. Full Ownership
100% of equity, 100% of control. No co-founder disagreements, no equity splits, no messy breakups.
Solo founder Pieter Levels built 70+ projects and keeps everything. That compounds over time.
2. Faster Decisions
No alignment meetings, no debates, no compromises. When you see an opportunity, you can move immediately.
3. Lower Complexity
No managing relationships, no navigating different working styles. The business is simpler to run.
4. It's Equally Common
51% of successful founders in our data are solo. The path is well-worn. Solo-founded companies like Mailchimp (Ben Chestnut started solo), Plenty of Fish (Markus Frind), and Spanx (Sara Blakely) prove you can build massive businesses alone.
When Going Solo Makes More Sense
Even though teams are faster on average, there are situations where solo makes more sense:
1. Lifestyle Businesses
If you're building for freedom and flexibility rather than maximum growth speed, solo gives you complete control.
2. Bootstrapped Products
No investors means no pressure to find the "perfect" co-founder. Many indie hackers thrive solo.
3. Simple Products
A straightforward SaaS or info product doesn't need a team. One person can handle everything.
4. Your Personal Preference
Some people genuinely work better alone. If you know you're more productive without coordination overhead, trust yourself.
What This Means for You
If you're considering starting something, here's the practical takeaway:
Don't wait for a co-founder
The "I'm looking for a co-founder" phase can last years. Many people use it as an excuse not to start. 51% of successful founders went solo — you can too.
If speed is your top priority, consider a co-founder
Teams move ~9% faster on average. If you're in a competitive market or have a time-sensitive opportunity, a good co-founder can help — but the difference isn't as dramatic as you might think.
Build your support system either way
Whether solo or with a team, invest in:
- An accountability partner or mastermind group
- Mentors who've done what you're trying to do
- Contractors for skills you lack
- Community (Indie Hackers, Twitter founders, etc.)
If you do want a co-founder, be selective
A bad co-founder is worse than no co-founder. Don't partner just because "you should have one."
The Bigger Picture
This finding is part of a larger pattern in our data:
| Conventional Wisdom | What Data Shows |
|---|---|
| "You need a co-founder" | Teams are 9% faster, but it's a 50/50 split |
| "You need to be technical" | Technical founders only 5.5% faster |
| "SEO is a slow channel" | True — but 56 founders used it successfully |
| "Twitter is the fastest" | Yes — 2.3x faster than SEO |
Both paths can work. Choose based on your situation, not conventional wisdom.
Check Where You Stand
Curious how your timeline compares?
Use our free Milestone Calculator to predict your timeline based on your founder profile. Or find your Founder Twin — a founder with a similar background who achieved your goals.
The Data Behind This Post
This analysis is based on curated founder stories from sources including Indie Hackers, founder blogs, and public milestone posts. All stories include verified milestone data.
Caveats:
- Survivorship bias: Only successful stories are published
- Selection bias: Solo founders who succeed may be more likely to share their stories
- Self-reported data: Timelines may be approximate
For transparency, you can browse our founder stories yourself and filter by founder type to see the raw data.
Building something? I'd love to hear your experience. Find me on Twitter @milestonedb or share your journey on our submission page.