Polsia vs Cofounder: Who Owns the Company Your AI Builds?

When an AI platform builds and runs a company for you, a question follows that the demos never answer: whose company is it? Not legally, both platforms in this comparison say the business is yours. Practically. Whose account collects the revenue, whose infrastructure runs the product, whose conventions shape the operation, and what would it take to walk away with all of it.

Polsia and Cofounder are two of the most complete attempts at the run-your-company-with-AI pitch, and they give meaningfully different answers to that question. Comparing them on features misses the point. The real comparison is on ownership and on where the human sits.

Two shapes of the same promise

Polsia's shape is full provisioning plus nightly autonomy. It stands up everything itself, the servers, the database, the email, the Stripe account, the repository, so you never connect an account. An AI CEO chat agent sits over a task system with specialist engineering, marketing, research, and support agents sharing memory. Every night an unsupervised loop decides what to work on and executes, and every morning you get a summary email. Its founder reports crossing $1M ARR about thirty days after launch, a self-reported number that varies across sources but signals real demand.

Cofounder's shape is a hosted company org. Agent departments modeled on a real company, engineering, sales, marketing, design, finance, operations, support, and legal, with managers and shared context, execute against a milestone-based roadmap with multiple tasks in parallel. The capability list is broad: it designs, builds, and deploys the product, monitors infrastructure and auto-fixes, warms inboxes, runs email outbound, produces content, manages paid and organic marketing, handles support and Stripe, and extends to domain registration, LLC incorporation, and setting up your social presence.

Who holds what

On Polsia, the answer is uniform: Polsia holds it. Revenue flows through a Stripe account Polsia controls, which is also how it collects its 20% share of business revenue and 20% of managed ad spend on top of a roughly $49 monthly subscription. The email, the servers, and the repo are Polsia's provisioning. You own 100% of what is built, by its own framing, but all of it lives inside the platform.

Cofounder is hosted too, everything runs at its cloud app, but the money model is conventional: a 7-day free trial with $10 of usage, a Pro plan at $20 a month with usage included, and usage-based overage on things like agent operations, models, compute, and ad spend. No percentage of your revenue appears in its published pricing.

There is one ownership wrinkle specific to Cofounder that matters to technical founders. You can bring your own codebase, but you cannot bring your own model key or your existing Claude Code or Codex subscription. The agents are Cofounder's agents on Cofounder's model billing, full stop. Polsia is equally closed, but Cofounder advertises enough extensibility, custom tools and skills, that the boundary is worth knowing before you assume it is open.

Where the human sits

Polsia's control model is review-after. The nightly loop is unsupervised by design, and your touchpoints are the morning email and the AI CEO chat. There is no gate between an agent deciding to do something and the thing happening.

Cofounder puts a gate in, but a narrow one. Its stated model is that agents work alongside you and require approval "when potentially dangerous actions are taken," with incorporation and opening a bank account as the named examples. That is a real difference from Polsia, and it is honest to credit it. It is also an allow-list: a short, predefined set of actions the platform decided are dangerous. The daily stream of outbound emails, content, deploys, and spend decisions runs without passing through you.

Who each one suits

Pick Polsia if you are optimizing for absence and speed. It is the strongest zero-setup story in the market, and if a morning email is enough oversight and a fifth of revenue plus a fifth of ad spend is an acceptable ongoing price for never touching infrastructure, it delivers exactly what it advertises.

Pick Cofounder if you want the full-company breadth at a flat, cheap entry point and you value the department structure. Twenty dollars a month plus usage is a much smaller commitment than a revenue share, the dangerous-action gate is better than no gate, and bringing your own codebase matters if you already have a product. Accept going in that the company runs on Cofounder's hosting and Cofounder's models, and that most day-to-day actions will not ask you first.

The version where the answer is simply "you"

Both platforms answer "who owns the company your AI builds" with some variant of "you, inside our walls." Task Machine is built for founders who want the walls gone. Agents act through accounts you already own, your Stripe, your repositories, your email, so there is nothing to reclaim later. Pricing is flat with no cut of revenue or ad spend. And instead of a morning email or a short dangerous-action list, every piece of work that needs judgment routes to one inbox before it ships, backed by deterministic workflows with approval and verifier steps and step-level logs.

Task Machine is not the right pick for everyone reading this comparison. If you have no accounts and no product yet, Polsia and Cofounder will both put a running company in front of you faster, because provisioning is their whole point and bringing your own accounts is the setup cost Task Machine asks you to pay. And if being asked before risky actions sounds like friction rather than safety, an approval inbox is the wrong control surface for you. It is the right pick when the company already exists or you want it to exist on your own accounts from day one.

The direct pages are Task Machine vs Polsia and Task Machine vs Cofounder. To run agents inside a company that stays yours, join the private beta on the waitlist.