What are the pros/cons of being a solo founder vs having a cofounder?

- easier to survive hard times
- can be a nice cross-functional team
- focus on the stuff you like to do most

- your own rules, own style of work.
- no frictions with co-founder

Completely agree with what you're saying.

Finding a co-founder if you go down that path is a very difficult thing to do and you should do the due diligence on a person when considering them for the position. Is it someone who has a different skillset than yours, do they complement your weaknesses, do you work well together, could you see yourself working hundreds of hours with them?

I think having a co-founder you work well with is very important, it's important to have the tough conversations first laying down what you expect of each other, equity, etc to prevent any potential disagreement down the line. Make it abundantly clear to both parties what you expect.

I also advise looking into equal equity for the simple reason that if both people have the same skin in the game, then they'll put in their utmost. If they feel like someone is getting more off the back of their hard work they'll possibly be less inclined to put their heart and soul into the project and personally I think that is much more important at an early stage.

However if you're very self motivated, then solo founder could be the move, if you don't like open discussion and can just get on with the project.

I agree with these points. I have started two companies with co-founders, and a bunch just by myself.

I personally prefer the latter (solo), since I got a pretty broad skillset and can move really quick. Not having to discuss with co-founders, means I can make decisions on-the-fly.

What works best for you really depends on your personal preferences and the type of business you want to build.