I'm very sympathetic to cooperatives, have traveled/know the Mondragon people (largest coop federation), etc.

However, I think there's a reason why coops seem to succeed at smaller scales, but there are essentially no large innovative coops.

There are a few large boring coops, and some small innovative ones, but seemingly something is making the CEO/investor board model the one large innovative companies are all using.

I suspect that it's both (1) access to capital is far harder for coops, and (2) that workplace democracy and hardcore mission focus aren't fully compatible. That is, "you cannot serve two masters" without losing focus on one of them.

What are the concrete benefits?

Do they tend to make greater revenue or profits? Pay higher wages and offer greater benefits to employees?

The problem is that knowing the right people to get investment does seem to have utility coops struggle to get, I think? maybe CEOs are basically like producers on movies who are just there to network for you.

In software I can imagine a worker-owned consultancy, but not a product company. It would imply staying in one place working on one product for your whole life, which doesn't sound inspiring

Don’t you still need someone to make high level decisions?

Maybe, but not necessarily for this reason. Even in a worker-owned coop, someone sets the overall direction. And how is that person going to be selected? It's still going to be largely politics.