Interesting finding. I've seen a lot of co-founder situations turn sour, so I can see how the average outcome might favor solo founders. However, given the cho

Interesting finding. I've seen a lot of co-founder situations turn sour, so I can see how the average outcome might favor solo founders. However, given the choice I'd still prefer a strong team of co-founders who can work well together over a solo founder. In order of decreasing preference, I'd want: 1) Team of equally great co-founders, preferably with a history of working well together 2) Strong solo founder who can follow through on delivery 3) Team of average or maybe unequal cofounders with a strong operating agreement to protect the company if one co-founder must be pushed out 4) Solo founder who is seeking co-founders. It's very risky to bring on random co-founders from outside of a person's network, but it's also risky for solo founders to try to build a company alone if they know they don't want to lead it alone. 5) Group of co-founders who can't work well together or don't have a strong operating agreement. A lot of post-college startups fail when 2-5 classmates try to co-found a company with different degrees of commitment. Eventually 1-2 people try to make it work and the rest are dead weight who won't give up their ownership shares. This kills the company. The real conundrum is that #1 may produce the best outcomes, but it's hardest to find. It's hard to know which co-founder teams are actually going to survive.