This article is for startup founders who are dividing equity among co-founders and need to get the split right from the start.
If you're wondering how to fairly allocate ownership, whether equal splits actually work, or what investors expect to see in your cap table, this guide covers common equity split approaches, how to evaluate each founder's contribution, and why vesting schedules are essential for every founding team.
Key Takeaways
• All founder equity must vest over four years with a one-year cliff to protect against early departures.
• Equal splits rarely reflect actual contributions and create resentment when founders contribute unequally over time.
• Investors view equal splits with no clear leadership and missing vesting schedules as major red flags.
• Calculate financial investments separately from sweat equity to maintain clarity about what compensates cash versus work.
• Document your equity split rationale and founder expectations in a founders' agreement before value accumulates.

Why Does Equity Split Matter?
Your equity split determines who controls the company, who benefits from exits, and who can block important decisions. Getting this wrong creates resentment, conflict, and potentially company failure as founders argue over fairness rather than building the business. The conversations you have now about equity will shape your working relationship for years to come.
What Are Common Equity Split Approaches?
Founders typically use one of several standard approaches when dividing equity, each with distinct advantages and drawbacks.
Equal Splits
Equal splits divide ownership evenly among all founders, with two founders each taking 50%, three founders each taking 33.3%, and so forth. This approach appears fair on the surface and avoids difficult conversations about relative value during the exciting early days of company formation.
However, equal splits rarely reflect actual contributions over time. One founder may work full-time while another remains part-time, one may have critical technical skills while others contribute less specialised abilities, or one may take significant financial risk while others maintain outside income. These differences become sources of resentment when everyone owns identical stakes despite unequal effort.
Contribution-Based Splits
Contribution-based approaches allocate equity based on what each founder brings to the company. This might include technical expertise that's difficult to replace, industry connections that open doors, previous startup experience that prevents costly mistakes, capital investment that funds initial operations, or full-time commitment versus part-time involvement.
The challenge lies in quantifying these different contributions and agreeing on relative values. How much equity is coding ability worth compared to sales expertise? What premium should full-time commitment receive over part-time involvement?
Founder-Employees Hybrid
Some structures distinguish between founding team members who receive significant equity (typically 60-90% collectively) and early employees who receive smaller stakes (typically 1-5% individually). This approach works when some team members join after initial formation but before the company has meaningful value.
The key is implementing this structure early before anyone feels they're being retroactively downgraded from founder to employee status.
How Do You Evaluate Founder Contributions?
Several frameworks help founders evaluate relative contributions more objectively.
Time Commitment Analysis
Full-time founders typically receive larger stakes than part-time founders because they're taking more risk and making bigger sacrifices. A founder leaving a €100,000 job to work full-time for no salary takes substantially more risk than someone working evenings and weekends while maintaining their day job.
Skills and Expertise
Founders bringing rare or critical skills may warrant larger stakes than those contributing more easily replaceable abilities. A technical founder building a complex AI platform might receive more equity than a business-focused founder handling standard administrative tasks, not because business work is less important but because the technical skills are harder to replace.
Financial Investment
Founders investing significant personal capital typically receive equity reflecting both their investment and their time contribution. Calculate the investment portion separately from the sweat equity portion to maintain clarity about what equity compensates for cash versus work.
For example, if one founder invests €50,000 while another invests nothing, you might allocate 10% equity for the investment (at a nominal company valuation) and split the remaining 90% based on expected contributions.
Opportunity Cost
Founders giving up high-paying jobs, relocating to join the company, or otherwise making significant personal sacrifices might warrant recognition in the equity split. A founder leaving a €150,000 position takes more personal risk than one leaving a €50,000 job, even if their time commitments are identical.
Should Founders Always Get Vesting Schedules?
Yes, all founder equity should vest over time regardless of the initial split.
Vesting protects the company when founders leave early by ensuring departed founders don't retain full equity stakes despite minimal contribution. Standard vesting schedules run over four years with a one-year cliff, meaning founders earn 25% after one year and the remainder monthly over the following three years.
Why Equal Splits Need Vesting
Even perfectly fair initial splits require vesting because circumstances change. A founder who seems fully committed at incorporation might decide startup life isn't for them after six months. Without vesting, that departed founder keeps their full stake while remaining founders must work for years building value that partially benefits someone no longer involved.
Accelerated Vesting Provisions
Consider including accelerated vesting provisions that release all or partial unvested equity upon acquisition or certain other trigger events. Single-trigger acceleration releases all equity immediately upon acquisition, while double-trigger acceleration requires both acquisition and subsequent founder termination.
Most investors prefer double-trigger acceleration because it ensures founders remain committed through acquisition integration periods.
What Should Founders' Agreements Include?
A founders' agreement documents the equity arrangement and expectations about how the company will operate. It should include:
How Does Future Dilution Work?
When you raise investment, all founders' percentages decrease proportionally as new shares are issued to investors.
If founders collectively own 90% before raising investment and grant 20% to investors, each founder's stake reduces by approximately 22% (their percentage of the 90% being diluted). A founder with 30% pre-investment would own approximately 24% post-investment (30% × 80% = 24%).
Protecting Against Dilution
While some dilution is inevitable when raising capital, founders can protect themselves by:
Can Equity Splits Change Later?
Yes, but changing equity splits after initial allocation requires all affected shareholders to agree, making it difficult once value accumulates in the company.
When to Reconsider
Circumstances that might justify reconsidering equity splits include:
How to Renegotiate
Approach equity renegotiations transparently with all affected parties before making proposals. Present objective data about changed circumstances rather than emotional arguments about fairness. Consider engaging a neutral mediator if discussions become contentious, as preserving the founder relationship matters more than any specific equity percentage.
What Do Investors Expect to See?
Investors evaluating your company will scrutinise your equity structure and founder arrangements carefully. They typically expect to see a logical split that reflects each co-founder's contribution, role, and commitment. A poorly structured or overly complex equity arrangement can raise red flags about the founding team's ability to make sound decisions and work together effectively.
Red Flags for Investors
Several equity arrangements signal problems to sophisticated investors:
What Investors Want
Investors prefer seeing equity structures that demonstrate:
How Do You Handle Founder Equity in Different Jurisdictions?
If founders are located in different countries, additional complexity arises around tax treatment and legal obligations.
Irish companies issuing shares to non-resident founders must consider:
Consult with tax advisors in each relevant jurisdiction before finalising international founder equity arrangements.

Stuart Connolly is a corporate barrister in Ireland and the UK since 2012.
He spent over a decade at Ireland's top law firms including Arthur Cox & William Fry.













