Not sure this even matters that much. What matter is YOU.

Who cares if 12% of solo founders make a successful exit, vs 14% of two founder companies. If you are a lone wolf and want to work alone, you are going to fail if not alone. If you are a social thinker and hate working alone, you would be silly to form a solo startup.

What if you're a lone wolf, and you discover 20% of duos successfully exit and 0.1% of solos successfully exit. Perhaps that is your come-to-jesus moment.

but what if you cant find anyone, or you too introverted to find anyone to work with, I'm very technical, but find it extremely difficult to speak with them, often im asked by others to just make something for them and thats it.

Having a hard time convincing someone else to work with you/on your idea, being excessively introverted, etc might be some of the underlying factors that might lead to a 200x difference in success likelihood in the posited, hypothetical case.

There have been some amazing projects by lone wolfs. Not all projects need a team.

Not considering the factors of success is a terrible strategy.

Overthinking factors of success can also be stifling as it may lead to analysis paralysis. Just do it is a better way to do it, so to speak.

knowing that startups located in city X have .1 success rate compared to city Y, tells you where to start. Or at least, it makes you wonder what makes Y more succesful, is it VC? talent? etc...

It's simple.

No thats survivorship bias. If you dont need easy access to SF, then starting in SF is a terrible idea. Way better COL elsewhere.

I agree, I don't think this really matters to the individual startup (in that there are probably much stronger factors for success than # of founders).

But it may matter for investors looking at things with the opposite perspective - for example, is it a good/bad heuristic to ignore companies with 5+ founders?

Agreed. When they say something like 90% of all new businesses fail, that doesn't mean you shouldn't start a new business, it just means a lot of stupid ill prepared people start businesses and fail. Which has absolutely no bearing on YOUR chances of success.

> Instead of looking at "% of successful exits that had n founders", it seems more relevant to look at "% of startups with n founders that had a successful exit".

I came here to say exactly this. The entire article appears to misunderstand conditional probability.

That number is probably impossible to come by, though.

Though I agree, they should have at least addressed the fact, and admitted that their data was suggestive at best.

It is hard to get reliable stats on non-successful exits often times.

And accounting for co-founder relationships and role changes is also hard, which happens often as a startup grows.

Also would be interesting to see exit cash per founder. For example, do co-founders make more money from their exits than solo entrepreneurs? One big downside to talking on a co-founder is that we have to grow the company to be twice as big/profitable than if I started it myself. Although, maybe solo entrepreneurs take more funding and give up more equity as they grow -- would be interesting to see the numbers on it.

There's a distribution of companies raising more than 10M there, it's a start. From both, success looks very slightly biased towards 1 and 2 founders.

Not really, there isn't enough information in the graphs to make that kind of claim. You can say that 45.9% of startups that raise $10m have 1 founder, but unless you know percentage of startups that have 1 founder you don't know anything useful. Maybe 50% of all startups have 1 founder, in which case 1 founder startups are underperforming.

If 99.9% of all startups have 1 founder then the numbers for everything except 1 founder startups look incredible.

Companies raise money before an exit, never after. Thus you can look at the difference between the share of the companies raising money, and the ones exiting.

It's not very reliable, and it may not generalize well. But it's something.

It's nice to have both.