Have you ever thought about starting a business? Or maybe you're already building one and wondering if you picked the right model?

Here's what I learned after analyzing 12 different ways to make money as an entrepreneur.

Let me ask you something: Do you know what kind of business you're actually building?

Not the industry or the product. I mean the fundamental model—how money comes in, how it scales, whether it compounds or dies when you stop working 80-hour weeks.

Most founders don't think about this. I didn't either for the first three years.

You want to build apps, so you build SaaS. You're good at consulting, so you start an agency. You read about Airbnb in college, so you try to build a marketplace.

But here's what I wish someone had told me in 2019:

The business model you choose matters more than how hard you work, how smart you are, or even how good your product is.

It determines 80% of your outcomes before you write a single line of code.

Let me show you what I mean.

Two Businesses, Same Founder, Completely Different Outcomes

For five years, I've been running two companies simultaneously:

SimpleDirect Financing: A fintech product for home improvement contractors. Beautiful app. Real customers (254 active contractors). Actual revenue. Took 3 years to build, integrated with 13 lenders, mobile apps, the whole thing.

ANC Consulting: An advisory business helping international founders with startup visas. Simple service. High-touch. Started with zero code.

Can you guess which one made money from Day 1?

Can you guess which one I'm shutting down this December?

SimpleDirect had everything a startup is "supposed" to have:

  • ✅ Technology
  • ✅ Scalability (in theory)
  • ✅ VC-fundable idea
  • ✅ Real customers

But it had broken unit economics. Every customer cost us more to serve than they paid us. And no amount of "working harder" or "optimizing" could fix the fundamental math.

Meanwhile, ANC consulting?

  • ✅ Profitable from Month 1
  • ✅ 70%+ margins
  • ✅ Growing every year
  • ✅ Clients pay upfront

Same founder. Same work ethic. Different business models.

One works. One doesn't.

That's when I realized: I was playing the wrong game.

The Question Nobody Asks

So last week, I sat down with my team and asked a question most founders never think about:

"If we could start over knowing what we know now, which business model would we actually choose?"

Not which sounds sexy. Not which gets VC funding. Not which our friends are doing.

Which model actually wins over a 30-year time horizon?

Because here's the thing—most startup advice optimizes for a 5-year exit. Raise VC, grow fast, sell to a bigger company, move on.

But what if you don't want to exit? What if you want to build something that lasts 10, 20, 30 years? Something that compounds? Something that eventually runs without you?

That requires a completely different framework.

So we built one.

The 6 Numbers That Actually Matter

Before I show you the rankings, let me explain how we evaluated each business model.

Think of these as the 6 vital signs of any business:

1. Short-Term Cash (0-2 years): Can you survive?

Translation: How fast can you make money?

Because here's reality - rent (or mortgage) is due every month. You need to eat. Your team needs salaries. If you can't generate cash in Year 1-2, you're playing a game that requires either:

  • Massive savings (rare)
  • VC funding (comes with strings)
  • A day job (limits your time)

Some business models print cash immediately (consulting). Others take 2+ years to see a dollar (marketplaces, venture capital).

Neither is "better"—but you need to know which game you're playing.

Question for you: How many months of runway do you have right now? Be honest.

2. Medium-Term Growth (3-5 years): Can you scale?

Translation: Can you 5x revenue without 5x-ing headcount?

This is where most "successful" businesses hit a ceiling.

Let's say you're a consultant making $200K/year. To make $1M, you need to either:

  • Work 5x harder (impossible)
  • Hire 4 more consultants (now you're managing, not building)
  • Raise prices 5x (good luck)

That's a linear business. More revenue = more time/people.

Compare that to software: serve 1 customer or 10,000 customers with the same code. That's scalable.

Some models scale beautifully. Others cap out fast.

Question for you: If you landed 10x more customers tomorrow, could your business handle it? Or would it collapse?

3. Long-Term Compounding (10-30 years): Does it run without you?

Translation: Could you take a 6-month vacation and come back to a bigger company?

This is the difference between:

  • A job you own (consulting, agency, personal brand)
  • An asset that compounds (software, equity portfolio, real estate)

Most founders build glorified jobs. If you stop working, revenue stops.

But compound businesses get stronger over time even when you sleep:

  • Software accumulates users
  • Investment portfolios grow
  • Content libraries attract new customers automatically

Warren Buffett is 94 years old. Berkshire Hathaway is worth $800 billion. It compounds without him doing anything.

Question for you: If you disappeared for a year, would your business be bigger or smaller when you got back?

4. Capital Efficiency: How much money do you need?

Translation: Can you bootstrap this or do you need investors?

Some businesses you can start with $0:

  • Consulting (just your brain)
  • Content creation (just your time)
  • Service businesses (start selling before building)

Others require serious capital:

  • Manufacturing (inventory costs)
  • Marketplaces (subsidize both sides)
  • Deep tech (R&D takes years)

There's no right answer, but needing less capital = more control.

VC money isn't free—you're selling equity, taking on bosses, and committing to an exit timeline you might not want.

Question for you: How much money would you need to get your business to $10K/month revenue? Be realistic.

5. Founder Leverage: Can it run without you?

Translation: Are you the product, or do you have a product?

This is brutal but true:

If clients are buying access to YOU—your brain, your network, your reputation—then you can never truly step away.

  • Consulting? Clients hire George, not "George's company"
  • Agency? Clients want the founder's oversight
  • Personal brand? You are the brand

But if you build systems, software, or a team that can deliver without you, then you have founder leverage.

Question for you: Could you hire someone to do your job in your business? Or are you irreplaceable?

6. Exit Potential: Can you sell this thing?

Translation: If you wanted to sell in 10 years, what's it worth?

Different business models have wildly different exit multiples:

  • Agency: Maybe 1-2x annual revenue (if you're lucky)
  • Consulting: Worth $0 without you
  • SaaS: 5-15x annual revenue (if metrics are good)
  • Marketplace: 10-30x revenue (if you have network effects)

This matters even if you never plan to sell, because exit multiples reflect how valuable your business is as an asset.

A business worth 10x revenue is more valuable than one worth 1x, period.

Question for you: If you had to sell your business today, what would it be worth? Actually calculate it.

The Scorecard

We scored 12 business models on each dimension (0-100 scale).

Maximum possible score: 600 points (100 per dimension).

Let me walk you through them, from worst to best.

12th Place: Traditional Agency (335/600)

What it is: You deliver marketing, design, or development services. Clients pay you $10-50K per project or monthly retainers.

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 85/100 ✅ (you can make money next week)
  • Medium-term growth: 50/100 (hard to scale past yourself)
  • Long-term compounding: 25/100 ❌ (every year starts from $0)
  • Capital efficiency: 95/100 ✅ (just need a laptop)
  • Founder leverage: 40/100 ❌ (clients want YOU)
  • Exit potential: 40/100 ❌ (maybe 1-2x revenue if lucky)

Why it ranks last:

I know this will upset people, but hear me out.

Agencies feel like success because you make money fast. Month 1, you land a client. Month 3, you're at $10K/month. Month 12, you're at $50K/month.

That feels amazing compared to building a product for 2 years with no revenue.

But here's the trap:

Every January 1st, you start from $0.

All your clients could leave. Your revenue resets. You haven't built anything that compounds.

You're not building an asset—you're renting out your brain.

Plus, clients hire YOU, not your company. Try to take a 3-month sabbatical and see what happens to revenue.

When you want to sell? Good luck. Agency multiples are 1-2x revenue if you find a buyer, which is rare because... the business is you.

Who this works for: If you want lifestyle income for 5-10 years, then pivot to something else. But not if you're playing the 30-year game.

Real talk: I know founders doing $2M/year in agency revenue who are more stressed than when they made $100K. They can't stop working. They can't sell. They're trapped.

Don't be that person.

11th Place: E-commerce/DTC Brand (365/600)

What it is: You make or source physical products, build a brand, sell direct to consumers online (think Warby Parker, Allbirds).

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 70/100
  • Medium-term growth: 65/100
  • Long-term compounding: 50/100
  • Capital efficiency: 50/100
  • Founder leverage: 60/100
  • Exit potential: 70/100

Why it's better than agency but still hard:

E-commerce sounds sexy. Everyone wants to be the next Dollar Shave Club.

But the economics are brutal:

  1. Inventory risk: You need $50-200K sitting in a warehouse before you make a dollar
  2. Customer acquisition costs: Facebook ads cost more every year (what cost $10 in 2015 costs $50 today)
  3. Competition: Amazon will copy your product if it works
  4. Constant innovation: You need to launch new products or you die

Yes, strategic buyers (P&G, Unilever) will pay 2-5x revenue for successful brands. But getting there requires burning millions on paid acquisition, and most DTC brands operate at razor-thin margins.

Who this works for: If you have deep product expertise, unique IP, or can build a cult following. Very few can.

Question: Do you have $100K+ to invest before making a profit? Be honest.

10th Place: Info Products/Courses (395/600)

What it is: You create online courses, ebooks, masterminds. Customers pay $50-5K to learn from you (think Ramit Sethi, Pat Flynn).

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 60/100
  • Medium-term growth: 65/100
  • Long-term compounding: 70/100 ✅
  • Capital efficiency: 95/100 ✅
  • Founder leverage: 55/100
  • Exit potential: 50/100

Why it's underrated but has limits:

The course model is actually pretty great:

  • Near-zero costs (just your time)
  • Create once, sell forever (passive income)
  • 90%+ margins
  • No inventory, no employees

But it has a ceiling:

  1. Requires personal brand: Takes 2-3 years to build credibility
  2. Hard to scale past $1-5M: Because you're the product
  3. Can't sell it: The course is tied to your name/reputation
  4. Market saturation: Everyone's launching courses now

I know course creators making $500K-3M/year working 20 hours/week. Amazing lifestyle.

But it's not a sellable asset. It's a high-paying job you created for yourself.

Who this works for: If you want freedom, passive income, and don't care about building something you can sell.

Question: Do you have expertise people would pay $500+ to learn? Could you teach it without being physically present?

9th Place: Productized Service (420/600)

What it is: Standardized service packages, recurring revenue. Like "unlimited design for $499/month" (Design Pickle model).

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 75/100 ✅
  • Medium-term growth: 70/100
  • Long-term compounding: 60/100
  • Capital efficiency: 85/100 ✅
  • Founder leverage: 65/100
  • Exit potential: 65/100

Why it's better than traditional agency:

This is the "evolved agency" model:

  • Not custom work every time (standardized packages)
  • Recurring revenue (customers pay monthly)
  • Easier to delegate (you have playbooks)
  • Better exit multiples (3-4x revenue vs 1-2x)

But you're still trading time/people for money. Every new customer requires more designers, writers, support staff.

Margins get squeezed when competitors undercut you.

Who this works for: If you want agency-style revenue with better leverage and exit potential.

8th Place: Venture Studio / Pure Equity (405/600)

What it is: You invest in or build 20-50 companies, take 10-30% equity, hold forever (like Sequoia, Y Combinator, or Berkshire Hathaway).

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 30/100 ❌
  • Medium-term growth: 70/100
  • Long-term compounding: 95/100 ✅
  • Capital efficiency: 40/100 ❌
  • Founder leverage: 85/100 ✅
  • Exit potential: 85/100 ✅

Why it's the ultimate long game:

This is the best compounding machine in existence:

  • Portfolio of 50 companies = exponential upside
  • One winner pays for 20 losers
  • Completely hands-off after initial investment
  • You can step away and it grows without you

Warren Buffett built $800B doing this.

Why most can't do it:

Zero cash flow for 3-5 years.

You need capital to invest AND capital to live on while you wait for exits.

Most founders can't survive 5 years with no income.

This is where I want ANC to be in 10-15 years—a portfolio of 50 companies generating exits. But you can't START here unless you're already wealthy.

Who this works for: If you have $2-5M to invest and can wait 5-10 years for returns.

7th Place (Tie): Pure SaaS Product (445/600)

What it is: B2B software, customers pay $49-499/month, recurring revenue (think HubSpot, Slack, Stripe).

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 50/100
  • Medium-term growth: 90/100 ✅
  • Long-term compounding: 80/100 ✅
  • Capital efficiency: 60/100
  • Founder leverage: 75/100
  • Exit potential: 90/100 ✅

Why everyone wants this:

SaaS is the dream:

  • Recurring revenue (compounds over time)
  • Highly scalable (serve 1 customer or 10,000 with same code)
  • High exit multiples (5-15x revenue)
  • Can run without founder (if built right)

Why it's harder than it looks:

  1. Slow to start: 6-18 months to meaningful revenue
  2. Brutally competitive: Everyone's building SaaS
  3. Churn kills you: If 5-10% of customers leave monthly, you're on a treadmill
  4. Need runway: 6-12 months of savings or you're dead

SimpleDirect is pure SaaS. Beautiful product, real customers—but we learned unit economics are HARD. Customer acquisition cost needs to be less than 1/3 of lifetime value, which is way harder than it sounds.

Who this works for: If you have technical skills, can wait 12-18 months, and have found a genuinely painful problem worth paying for.

Question: Can you survive 12 months with no revenue? Do you have technical co-founders?

7th Place (Tie): API/Infrastructure SaaS (445/600)

What it is: Developer tools, API products. Usage-based pricing like $0.01-1 per API call (think Stripe, Twilio, Plaid).

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 40/100 ❌
  • Medium-term growth: 90/100 ✅
  • Long-term compounding: 85/100 ✅
  • Capital efficiency: 55/100
  • Founder leverage: 80/100 ✅
  • Exit potential: 95/100 ✅

Why it's SaaS on steroids:

Better than consumer SaaS because:

  • Infinitely scalable (usage-based pricing)
  • Incredibly sticky (painful to rip out infrastructure)
  • Highest exit multiples (10-20x revenue)
  • Less founder-dependent (technical product)

Why it's even harder:

  • Slower to revenue (12-24 months minimum)
  • Requires deep technical expertise
  • Long enterprise sales cycles
  • Infrastructure costs add up

Who this works for: If you're a legitimately great engineer and can wait 2 years to monetize.

6th Place: Marketplace/Platform (450/600)

What it is: Connect buyers and sellers, take 10-30% commission (Airbnb, Uber, Upwork model).

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 40/100 ❌
  • Medium-term growth: 95/100 ✅
  • Long-term compounding: 90/100 ✅
  • Capital efficiency: 50/100
  • Founder leverage: 80/100 ✅
  • Exit potential: 95/100 ✅

Why it's the ultimate network effects business:

When it works, it's magic:

  • Winner-take-all dynamics (first platform dominates)
  • Exponential growth after hitting critical mass
  • Massive exit multiples (10-30x revenue)
  • Platform runs itself at scale

Why most fail:

The chicken-and-egg problem.

You need supply (sellers) AND demand (buyers) simultaneously. But:

  • Sellers won't join without buyers
  • Buyers won't come without sellers

So you have to subsidize both sides (burn money) until you hit critical mass. Most marketplaces die before getting there.

Who this works for: If you have capital, can solve the cold start problem, and have infinite patience.

This is binary: either $100M+ outcome or $0.

5th Place: Holdco/Mini Berkshire (460/600)

What it is: Buy small profitable businesses ($500K-5M each), hold forever, compound cash flows (Warren Buffett's model, scaled down).

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 60/100
  • Medium-term growth: 75/100 ✅
  • Long-term compounding: 90/100 ✅
  • Capital efficiency: 70/100
  • Founder leverage: 85/100 ✅
  • Exit potential: 80/100 ✅

Why this is brilliant:

You're buying proven businesses that already work:

  • They're profitable (no product-market fit risk)
  • They have systems (operators run them)
  • Cash flows compound forever
  • You can step away (high founder leverage)

Why it's hard to start:

You need capital—$500K-2M for your first acquisition.

But here's the beautiful part: once you have cash flow from ONE business, you can use those profits to buy the NEXT business.

Then that cash flow buys the next one.

It compounds.

This is my long-term plan with ANC—use consulting profits to acquire small businesses, hold them forever, build a portfolio that generates $1-5M/year in passive income.

Who this works for: When you have $500K+ to deploy and want passive compounding wealth.

4th Place: Traditional Premium Consulting (285/600)

Wait—this ranked FOURTH but scored only 285/600?

Yes. Let me explain.

What it is: High-end advisory services, $50-200K per client, like McKinsey or specialized consultants.

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 90/100 ✅
  • Medium-term growth: 40/100 ❌
  • Long-term compounding: 10/100 ❌
  • Capital efficiency: 95/100 ✅
  • Founder leverage: 20/100 ❌
  • Exit potential: 30/100 ❌

Why it scores so low:

Premium consulting is a trap disguised as success.

You make $200-500K/year. High margins. Intellectually stimulating. You think you're winning.

But:

  • It doesn't scale (more clients = more time)
  • Clients buy YOU, not your company
  • It dies when you stop working
  • Worthless exit (maybe 1-2x revenue if you're lucky)

You're not building a business. You're a highly-paid employee with no boss.

So why is it ranked 4th?

Because it's the necessary first step to build something better.

Here's the secret: Consulting is a gateway drug to real wealth.

You use consulting to:

  1. Generate immediate cash (pays your bills)
  2. Learn what problems are valuable
  3. Fund building actual assets (software, equity, content)

But you don't STAY in consulting. You transition.

Which brings us to...

3rd Place: Service → SaaS Hybrid (475/600)

What it is: Start with consulting/services for cash flow, then build software to automate and scale (Mailchimp and HubSpot's original model).

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 85/100 ✅
  • Medium-term growth: 80/100 ✅
  • Long-term compounding: 75/100 ✅
  • Capital efficiency: 90/100 ✅
  • Founder leverage: 65/100
  • Exit potential: 80/100 ✅

Why this is the best of both worlds:

You get:

  • Immediate cash from services (fund software development)
  • Proven demand (you're solving a real problem people pay for)
  • No VC needed (self-funded)
  • Eventually: SaaS scales, services cap out

Real-world example:

Mailchimp started as an email marketing agency. They built software to automate their work. Eventually, the software business became bigger than the agency. They sold for $12 billion.

HubSpot started as a consulting firm. Built software to scale. Now worth $30 billion.

This is what I'm doing with ANC: Consulting funds building the software platform.

Why it's hard:

  • Services distract from product (time split)
  • Transition is tricky (when do you stop taking consulting clients?)
  • Clients resist automation (they want the human touch)

Who this works for: If you have consulting skills AND technical chops (or can hire devs).

2nd Place: ANC Model - Consulting + Equity + Software + Media (470/600)

What it is: The hybrid model we're building at ANC:

  • Premium consulting ($60-80K/client) = immediate cash
  • Equity stakes (5-15% in companies) = long-term compounding
  • Software products (SaaS platform) = recurring revenue
  • Media empire (podcast, blog, community) = distribution

The scorecard:

  • Short-term cash: 85/100 ✅
  • Medium-term growth: 75/100 ✅
  • Long-term compounding: 85/100 ✅
  • Capital efficiency: 80/100 ✅
  • Founder leverage: 70/100 ✅
  • Exit potential: 75/100 ✅

Why this beats everything else:

It's diversified across all time horizons:

  • Year 1-3: Consulting pays the bills (short-term cash)
  • Year 3-10: Software scales + equity starts paying (medium-term growth)
  • Year 10-30: Portfolio compounds + media runs itself (long-term wealth)

You're not dependent on one revenue stream. If consulting slows down, software picks up slack. If software takes longer to build, equity compounds in background.

Why it's complex:

  • Requires discipline (easy to get distracted by shiny objects)
  • Needs systems (or you're just consulting forever)
  • Takes patience (portfolio compounds slowly over 10+ years)

But here's the insight:

While Service → SaaS technically scored higher (475 vs 470), the ANC model is better for someone with specific advantages:

✅ Already have consulting revenue
✅ Already have a team
✅ Already have distribution (28K Twitter, podcast)
✅ Already have technical capabilities

Starting a pure marketplace would mean abandoning these assets.

Context-dependent optimization beats universal optimization.

1st Place: Wait, there's no #1?

Actually, there is.

The #1 business model is whatever lets YOU specifically win over 30 years, given:

  • Your current skills
  • Your current assets
  • Your current situation
  • Your goals (lifestyle? exit? generational wealth?)

Let me show you what I mean.

The 30-Year Question: Which Game Are You Really Playing?

Most founders optimize for a 5-year exit.

Raise VC → grow fast → sell to bigger company → move on.

But what if that's not your game?

What if you want to build something that:

  • Lasts 10, 20, 30 years
  • Compounds wealth
  • Eventually runs without you
  • Becomes generational

Then you need to think differently.

Here's how I think about the 30-year game:

Years 1-5: Cash Flow Phase

Goal: Survival + learning

Best models:

  • Consulting (immediate cash)
  • Service → SaaS (cash + building assets)
  • Productized service (recurring revenue)

Avoid:

  • Pure VC-funded startup (you're on their timeline)
  • Marketplace (too risky without capital)
  • Venture studio (need wealth first)

You need CASH to survive while you learn what actually works.

Don't be romantic about this. Pay rent. Feed your family. Build from stability.

Years 5-15: Leverage Phase

Goal: Build compounding assets

Transition to:

  • Software (recurring revenue scales)
  • Equity portfolio (compounds in background)
  • Media/content (distribution compounds)

Key insight: Use cash from Phase 1 to BUILD Phase 2.

Consulting profits → fund software development
Service revenue → take equity stakes in clients
Personal brand → build media empire

This is where most founders fail. They get comfortable with consulting income and never transition.

Years 15-30: Compounding Phase

Goal: Wealth multiplies without you

Focus on:

  • Portfolio exits (equity stakes pay off)
  • Software runs itself (SaaS cash flows)
  • Acquire more assets (use cash to buy profitable businesses)
  • Enjoy life (you've earned it)

At this point, you're closer to Warren Buffett than a "startup founder."

You own assets that compound. You're not trading time for money anymore.

Example:

Year 1-5: ANC consulting generates $600K-2M/year (I'm here now)
Year 5-10: Use profits to build software + take equity in 20 companies
Year 10-15: Portfolio hits $20-50M value, software at $2M ARR
Year 15-20: First exits happen, use proceeds to buy more assets
Year 20-30: Portfolio worth $100-500M, mostly passive

That's the game.

So Which Model Should YOU Choose?

Let me ask you some questions:

Question 1: How much runway do you have?

  • Less than 6 months → Start with consulting/service (need cash NOW)
  • 6-12 months → Service → SaaS hybrid (cash + build assets)
  • 12+ months → Pure SaaS or marketplace (if you can wait)
  • Already have cash flow → Equity/holdco (use profits to compound)

Question 2: Do you want to sell or hold forever?

  • Want to sell in 5-10 years → Pure SaaS or marketplace (high multiples)
  • Want to build generational wealth → ANC model or Holdco (compound forever)
  • Don't know yet → Service → SaaS hybrid (keeps options open)

Question 3: Are you technical?

  • Yes → Build software (SaaS, API infrastructure)
  • No but can hire → Service → SaaS or ANC model
  • No and bootstrapping → Consulting, agency, or productized service

Question 4: What's your 30-year goal?

  • Freedom/lifestyle → Info products, consulting (high cash, low stress)
  • Massive exit → SaaS, marketplace (high risk, high reward)
  • Generational wealth → ANC model, holdco (compound forever)
  • Don't care about money → Do whatever makes you happy (seriously)

What I'd Tell My 2019 Self

If I could go back to the basement apartment in Waterloo where this all started, here's what I'd say:

'George, you're going to spend 5 years building SimpleDirect. It's going to fail.'

"But that's okay. Because while building it, you'll also run ANC consulting. And THAT will be the foundation of everything."

"Here's what you should do differently:"

  1. Don't try to build VC-scale fintech when you don't have VC capital
    • SimpleDirect needed $5M+ to win
    • We had $0 investor money
    • Wrong model for our resources
  2. Focus on the ANC model from Day 1
    • Take equity stakes in clients (you'll have 50 by now)
    • Build the software platform earlier (don't wait 5 years)
    • Invest more in content/media (compounding distribution)
  3. Think 30 years, not 5
    • Stop trying to build something to sell
    • Build something that compounds
    • Play the long game

But honestly? I don't regret SimpleDirect.

It taught me what DOESN'T work, which is just as valuable as knowing what does.

And because I had ANC consulting providing cash flow, I survived to build again.

That's the power of picking the right business model.

The Real Answer

So which business model is "best"?

There is no universal answer.

But there IS a best answer for YOU specifically, given:

  • Where you are now
  • What resources you have
  • What game you're playing (5-year exit vs 30-year compound)

For most founders reading this, I'd recommend:

Path 1: If you're starting from zero → Service → SaaS Hybrid (79.2%) → Start consulting/agency for cash → Build software to automate → Transition over 3-5 years

Path 2: If you already have cash flow → ANC Model (78.3%) → Keep consulting, add equity stakes → Build software products → Launch media/content → Compound over 10-30 years

Path 3: If you're technical with runway → Pure SaaS (74.2%) → Build for 12-18 months → Find PMF → Scale aggressively

Path 4: If you have capital → Holdco model (76.7%) → Buy profitable businesses → Hold forever → Compound cash flows

One Last Question

Before you close this tab, ask yourself:

"What game am I actually playing?"

Are you building:

  • A job you own (agency, consulting)
  • A product you can sell (SaaS, marketplace)
  • An asset that compounds (equity, holdco, ANC model)

Because the model you pick determines 80% of your outcome.

You can work 80-hour weeks for 5 years and end up with nothing to show for it (wrong model).

Or you can work smart, pick the right model, and build something that lasts 30 years.

Choose wisely.

Building something? Want to talk through which model makes sense for you? Hit me up on Twitter @TheGeorgePu or listen to more founder lessons on Founder Reality.

Want the full business model comparison spreadsheet with all the scores? Reply and I'll send it.

George

Meet the Author: George Pu

George Pu

George Pu George Pu is a technical founder building AI-powered companies across three countries. At 27, he's bootstrapped multiple profitable businesses without VC funding, including SimpleDirect (embedded financing) and ANC (global venture studio).