How Corp Dev Works With Product Teams

Build vs Buy: Shipping on Founder Time

When you're the founder, you're often the Head of Product and the Head of Corp Dev, even if your LinkedIn says CEO. I've been there.

So you're also the one arguing with yourself:

• "We can build this in a few sprints."

• "Or we can buy it and go live before the next board meeting."

Bigger companies have teams to run that push-pull. Product scopes the roadmap. Corp dev looks for shortcuts. They meet monthly, swap notes, and pressure-test each other's blind spots.

You don’t have that luxury. But you still need that tension. Because the real decision isn’t build vs buy. It’s: who gets to the customer first?

If it’s not you, it’s probably someone with a cheque and a term sheet.

The 49% Signal: Speed Is the New Strategy

According to KPMG, 49% of dealmakers say their next M&A move is about “immediate or near-term synergies.”

Translation: they’re not buying optionality, they’re buying clock speed.

This changes the rules. If your roadmap takes 12 months, and your competitor can buy their way there in six, you’re not competing on product, you’re competing on time.

And if your board starts seeing faster paths to revenue through someone else’s asset, your “let’s just build it” logic starts sounding like a delay.

Can Your Team Ship 40% Faster Than the Buyer?

BCG found that digital “champions” ship products 40% faster than legacy peers.

That’s great if you’re one of them. But most startups are still getting their house in order.

Take Tyler Denk at beehiiv. After raising, the team doubled in six months. He told me the plan was to move faster.  But IRL, there was onboarding chaos, process bloat, and knowledge gaps.

“No one knows anything. They don’t know where anything is. They don’t know what anyone does.” - Tyler

That’s what growth looks like mid-sprint.

Meanwhile, someone else with an established team could acquire a similar feature and have it live by the time you’ve trained your newest engineer.

If your product roadmap depends on scaling your org first, you’re not building, you’re waiting.

Simulating Corp Dev vs Product, When You're Both

In bigcos, this relationship has structure:

• Annual roadmap alignment: Corp dev and product meet to map out build/buy/partner bets.

• Monthly syncs: They trade intel on risks, targets, and what's moving in market.

• Constructive tension: Product wants to build. Corp dev wants to buy. The debate sharpens both.

You can recreate this dynamic, even solo:

1. Schedule a monthly or quarterly “Build vs Buy” meeting with yourself, but ideally add your management team/board.
Force the zoom-out. Ask:

• What features are slipping?

• What would we buy today if we had the cash?

• What’s being built elsewhere that we’re pretending isn’t a threat?

2. Run every major roadmap item through a build-buy-partner filter.

• Build if it’s your moat.

• Buy if it’s table stakes or time-sensitive.

• Partner if you can’t win alone, but can move faster together.

3. Pressure-test your assumptions like a strategic buyer.
Would you pay to acquire this feature today? What’s it worth? And what happens if someone else launches it before you do?

This is how you simulate the “push-pull”, not with politics, but with process.

When Beehiiv Bet on Build

Some bets are worth building. But they still come with risk.

Tyler Denk told me Beehiiv always intended to launch an ad network, but waited nearly two years to touch it. Why? They knew they needed infrastructure, users, and impressions first.

It was the right call, but it almost wasn’t. If someone else had launched first and set pricing norms in the category, Beehiiv would’ve been chasing.

The lesson: even when you know it’s a build, delay kills leverage.

When Courtyard and Butler Bought the Clock

Other founders choose speed because they have to.

Courtyard.io could’ve built their own secure logistics for luxury asset storage. Instead, when I spoke to founder Nicolas Le Jeune, he shared how they cut a deal with Brinks. This resulted in fast-track credibility and ops maturity in a space where DIY = death.

Patrick Butler did one better. Instead of trying to convince Monster.com to switch resume partners, he bought the company that already had the exclusive. Overnight, his company locked in distribution and revenue. More on this here.

“There was never a hurdle to building it. But buying meant we could move now.” 

When acquisition skips a sales cycle, or wins a channel, you don’t need better tech. You need a faster clock.

Scarcity Is a Strategy, But Only for a While

In Q1 2025, $64B in tech M&A was driven by hyperscalers hoarding AI infra, compute, and talent. PwC says Big Tech will drop $300B+ on AI capex this year alone.

If you’re holding something unique: infra, niche data, GTM traction. Now is your window to price it. But if you wait too long, you won’t be scarce. You’ll be surplus.

Once they’ve bought what they need, you're not selling gold. You're selling leftovers.

A Blunt Matrix to Make the Call

This isn’t a philosophical debate. It’s quick maths.

Your Q4 Homework

• Benchmark your actual velocity
  How many story-points did you ship last quarter? How does that compare to the acquirers circling your space?

• Run the build-buy-partner grid
  Prioritize by urgency vs in-house strength. Anything urgent and weak? You’re already behind. Scout targets.

• Know your price
  What would a buyer pay for what you’ve built? If you can’t answer, you’re negotiating from ego, not data.

Building keeps your cap table clean. But if your team can’t ship faster than a buyer can acquire, you’re not building product, you’re burning time.

The next cheque you write, whether it’s to your dev team or a banker, will decide whether you win on your roadmap or someone else’s.

Don't just think like a founder. Think like both sides of the table.

Not sure where to start with buying a company? Never bought a company before? This is what we do. Shoot me an email letting me know your vision, and we can hop on a call to see if we can help you acquire companies to fuel your growth.