Cofounder Alternatives That Let You Bring Your Own Accounts
Cofounder hosts everything and won't take your model keys or coding-agent subscriptions. The alternatives differ on ownership, approvals, and cost.
Founder, Task Machine
You already pay for the tools an AI-run business needs. A Claude Code or Codex subscription you use every day, a Stripe account with real customers in it, a domain, a repository, maybe an ads account with history. So when a platform offers to run your whole company with AI, the natural question is whether it can use what you already have.
With Cofounder, the answer is mostly no. It models your business as agentic departments across engineering, sales, marketing, design, finance, and operations, and it is genuinely broad in what those departments can do. But execution is hosted on Cofounder's side, and you cannot bring your own model key, your Claude Code subscription, or your Codex subscription. You can bring your own codebase, and that is roughly where the ownership story ends. The subscription you already pay for sits idle while you pay for usage again inside someone else's stack.
There is a second, quieter limitation. Cofounder does have human-in-the-loop control, and it deserves credit for that in a lane full of fire-and-forget loops. But the approval model is a short allow-list of dangerous actions, things like incorporating an LLC or opening a bank account. Everything below that threshold, including outbound email to real prospects and content published under your name, is the platform's call. An approval gate that only triggers on incorporation paperwork is a safety catch, not a control surface.
What to actually compare
If either of those limits sent you looking for Cofounder alternatives, feature lists will not settle it, because every platform in this lane claims the same departments. Compare on ownership instead. Three questions do most of the work:
- Can agents use the accounts and subscriptions you already own, or does the platform host its own stack and bill you for usage inside it?
- Where is the approval line drawn, and who drew it? A fixed allow-list of dangerous actions is different from a gate you position yourself, per kind of work.
- What does leaving look like? Work that ran through your own Stripe, repo, and email is portable. Work that ran through the platform's stack is not.
Here is how the field answers.
| Tool | Bring your own accounts | Bring your own model or coding-agent subscription | Approval model | Pricing shape |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cofounder | Codebase yes, execution stack no | No | Fixed allow-list of dangerous actions (LLC incorporation, bank account) | Pro $20/mo with usage-based overage, 7-day trial |
| Polsia | No. It provisions and holds servers, database, email, Stripe, and repo | No | Unsupervised nightly loop, morning summary email | ~$49/mo plus 20% of revenue through its Stripe and 20% of managed ad spend |
| AgentAGI | Cloud platform hosts the agent org | No | You approve strategy from above, org chart runs 24/7, per-agent budgets stop at the limit | Subscription, no revenue cut reported |
| win.sh | Yes. Connects to Stripe, Shopify, HubSpot, GitHub, and more (12+) | Cloud sandbox execution, with a CLI to run the same loops from your terminal | Approval gates on risky moves, plus a per-work-type authority matrix that earns autonomy over time | Flat monthly budget $50 and up, hard cap, no revenue share |
| Task Machine | Yes. Agents act through accounts you own | Yes. Agents run on your own machine with the coding-agent tools you already use | Approval, question, and verifier nodes you place in the workflow, plus an autonomy level per kind of work | Flat pricing, no cut of revenue |
The table sorts the lane into three postures. Polsia is the far end of convenience: nothing to connect because it owns everything, paid for with custody and a recurring cut. Cofounder and AgentAGI host the execution but do not take your revenue. win.sh and Task Machine connect to what you already own.
Where each alternative honestly wins
Polsia wins if your goal is maximum absence. Nothing to connect, a company that runs overnight, and founder-reported traction that suggests plenty of people want exactly that trade. You just need to be comfortable with your business living on someone else's Stripe.
AgentAGI wins on speed to a running agent team. Its templates get you going in about two minutes, and per-agent budgets are a real spending control. It suits founders who like the org-chart abstraction and want to govern rather than operate. The full comparison is in the AgentAGI alternatives survey.
win.sh is the strongest alternative for the specific complaint that brought you here. It connects to accounts you own, takes no cut, gates risky moves behind approvals, and its authority matrix is a thoughtful answer to how much autonomy to grant. Its bet is autonomy-first: a 24/7 loop that runs before you ask and reports each morning via Telegram. If you want your own accounts and are happy reviewing a daily brief, it is polished and hard to fault.
Cofounder itself, to be fair, remains a reasonable pick if the hosted stack does not bother you. At $20 a month plus usage it is inexpensive to try, the department breadth is real, and milestone-based roadmaps give the work structure. The alternatives matter when ownership does.
Where Task Machine fits
Task Machine takes the ownership question further than the rest of the field, because it applies to the execution environment too, not just the accounts.
Agents run on your own machine, where your repositories, files, browsers, and CLI tools already live, using the coding-agent tools you already have. Nothing about your model access gets re-bought inside a hosted stack. Agents act through accounts you own, so your Stripe stays your Stripe and your email stays your email. Task Machine takes no cut of your revenue and never holds your accounts.
The approval model is the other structural difference from Cofounder. Instead of a fixed allow-list, approvals are nodes you place inside deterministic workflows: explicit graphs with branch conditions, human-question nodes, approval nodes, and verifier nodes, with step-level logs you can read afterwards. You decide that outbound email always stops for review, that internal research runs ahead unattended, and that anything touching billing needs an approval, and the workflow enforces it every run. Autonomy is a level you set per kind of work, not a threshold the vendor picked.
The cost of that model is stated plainly: you connect your own accounts instead of having a stack handed to you, which is more setup than Cofounder's hosted start, and the whole point of an inbox full of approvals is that you show up to answer them.
Who should not pick Task Machine
If Cofounder's hosted model was never your objection, and what you actually want is the broadest set of departments doing things for a few dollars a month, staying with Cofounder or trying AgentAGI is defensible. If you want your own accounts but prefer a company that runs itself and briefs you each morning, win.sh fits that preference better than a control-first layer does. And if you want zero setup above all, Polsia removes even the connecting, at the price of custody and a cut.
Task Machine is for the founder who wants agents working inside the business they already own, on subscriptions they already pay for, with approval lines they drew themselves.
For the direct side-by-side, read the Task Machine vs Cofounder comparison, or see what switching from Cofounder involves. If bring-your-own-everything is the model you want, join the private beta on the waitlist.