Interest in team diversity initiatives has grown significantly over the past decade. Some initiatives focus on creating "highly variable" teams where members bring a wide range of attributes. Others prioritize "highly atypical" teams, where members contribute attributes underrepresented within the broader organization or field, regardless of variety. These two approaches entail markedly different assumptions about maximizing team diversity's benefits. Comparing short- and long-term outcomes provides important insights into cultivating and leveraging diverse teams. To do so, we examined the proposal submissions of all variable and atypical teams within a competitive seed grant program over six years. We assessed short-term performance based on funding outcomes following a three-stage review process and long-term viability based on team members' tendency to collaborate more in the future. Our findings demonstrate that diversity operates differently when conceptualized as variability versus atypicality. Specifically, while team variability often resulted in neutral or even negative short-term performance, it had a mixed effect on long-term viability. Conversely, while team atypicality had a mixed impact on short-term performance, it consistently enhanced long-term viability. These results underscore the distinctive value of nurturing highly atypical teams to promote lasting collaboration success and highlight the importance of aligning diversity cultivation strategies with organizations' short- and long-term goals.