I analyzed 1600 startups. "No market need" isn't the #1 killer anymore

Hey everyone,

I have a weird hobby of collecting data on startup failures (autopsies). I just finished analyzing 1,600+ failures (burning $500B+ in capital) and put it all on a site I built just to share the findings.

The biggest surprise? We're often told startups die because of "No Market Need." But in this dataset, that was only the #9 cause (36%).

The real killers were Product Problems (85%) and Competition (82%)—which totally contradicts the old "startups commit suicide, they don't get murdered" saying.

I built this with no ads, no sign-ups, and no paywall. Just raw data for anyone who wants to avoid these potholes.

Hope it helps you build something that lasts.

Do you know any links about whether successful founders learn about failures or not?

From my limited experience, founders concentrate on their current risks.

I also think founders are good at filtering out the deluge of failure porn that is mostly irrelevant to their business: there's millions of ways to fail. Yes, it helps to learn the patterns. But I'm unsure learning even famous examples like "The Osbourne effect" helps a founder. (reëdited)

What was your emotional drive for creating this?