If your goal is to get big and you don't have funds or can't attract funding, you'll probably do best to look for a cofounder who's comfortable in the behind-the-scenes roll. If you don't have money but there're two of you, and you complementary and on the same page, you'll grow a lot faster than if you don't have money but there's one of you. The situation I ran into was not having money, and having cofounders who were not on the same page with me - that kills companies.
If you don't have money but just want a lifestyle business, then it's fine to be a single founder. You'll grow slower, but have freedom, and if all it's about for you is freedom then that'll be fine.
It can still be nice to have one, one guys schleps are another persons hobby. Like I'm good at analysis, but bad at dealing with third-parties. The guy I'm working with is good at dealing with third-parties but is a bit slower at dissecting problems. No worries. There's a number of different other pairings of this kind too, some areas where we have overlap, some stuff one of us needs to figure out, some both of us need to learn. And I think that's pretty cool.
Ultimately no one can have it all, learn to focus on the strengths, though if truly all of those are your strengths break forward and absolutely kill it.
What's your take on the situation where you are both? (Where somebody is visionary, "knows business" and codes as well.)