Are solo efforts ever better?

Lou Reed, though he wasn't the star.

The Fab Four sans Ringo.

George Gobel, after he parted with The Knaut so Knotty Boys, is a no brainer.

DeKay

That's a good spot!

It seems as if going solo does not lead to better things.

Perhaps it's usually just more of a case of 'artistic differences' or just plain greed?

Or perhaps it's a case of most artists doing their best work during their 20s.

Neither Keith Richards not Mick Jagger ever managed to get anywhere near their Stones output.

Richard Thompson had a bit of success but you can't call his solo career a rip roaring success.

Bryan Ferry found his niche outside Roxy but whether it was better is up for debate

John Lydon started well and then trundled on for a while with PiL but there's little doubt that it's the Pistols he is remembered for.

Debbie Harry, Chris Stein hardly matched their Blondie output.

Neither Mike Heron nor Robin Williamson managed to recapture some of the magic of the Incredible String Band.

The only clear exceptions might be Paul Simon and Van Morrison.

Simon's s solo work, There Goes Rhymin Simon, One Trick Pony, Graceland, Songs from the Capeman are all up there with his Art Gafunkel collaborations.

Van Morrison's work outside Them has attained legendary status but he was still only a youngster when he went solo.

Gabriel is a good vote here.  No chance on Sting.  

@dekay the Beatles are the epitome of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.  Not sure many would agree with your assertion.  

Steve Winwood.