It is often easier to evidence, which is not the same thing. An operating company supplies records that a startup must construct, but the requirements are identical: treaty nationality, substantial at-risk capital, a genuine commercial enterprise, the investor's ability to direct it, and more than marginal capacity. A weak acquisition proves nothing merely by existing.
Apply the same checklist to both options
Take each requirement and write, for each route, what evidence would satisfy it and what is missing today. Nationality is unaffected by the choice — citizenship of a treaty country is required, and Canadian permanent residence alone does not provide it. Non-marginality is where the two often diverge: a declining business may fail it despite its history, while a startup with committed contracts may meet it.
The comparison should end in a written conclusion, not a preference. There is a second comparison worth making alongside the evidence one: what each route asks of the investor in the first year. An acquisition generally requires the investor to take over an operating business immediately, with existing staff, customers and obligations, which is demanding but visible.
A startup requires the investor to build all of that while the enterprise is not yet trading, which is a different kind of demand and one that a develop-and-direct account has to describe honestly. Neither is easier; they are difficult in different months, and the household's own circumstances often decide which difficulty is manageable.