A side-by-side comparison of Aegon Asset Management and Schroders across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Schroders manages roughly 2.7× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Aegon Asset Management | Schroders | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | Netherlands | United Kingdom |
| Founded | 1983 | 1804 |
| Firm age | 43 yrs | 222 yrs |
| Roles | Gp | Lp, Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | EUR 287.5B | EUR 766.7B |
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Mega ($500B+) |
| AUM ratio | 2.7× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
| Strategies | ||
Aegon Asset Management is a asset manager based in Netherlands, while Schroders is a asset manager based in United Kingdom. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Schroders is larger (EUR 287.5B vs EUR 766.7B).
| 28 — Mid-Market Buyout, Buyout, Growth Equity, Co-investment |
| Asset classes | private equity, private credit, real estate, infrastructure, fixed income | private equity, real estate, infrastructure, fixed income, cash, private credit, venture capital, other |
| Shared asset classes | 5: private equity, private credit, real estate, infrastructure, fixed income |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | Europe | United Kingdom |
| Regions | Europe, Global, North America, Europe | United Kingdom, United States, Europe, Asia |
| Shared geographies | Europe, Europe, Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 0 | 28 |
| Largest fund | — | Schroders Capital Private Equity Global Direct IV |
| Vintage range | — | 2023–2026 |
| Fund statuses | — | Fundraising (26), Closed (2) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 2 | 38 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.0 per $B | 0.0 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 8/100 | 23/100 |
| Network strength | 1/100 | 3/100 |
| Relationships | 1 | 2 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | High |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 26% | |
| Asset class overlap | 63% | |
| Geography overlap | 14% | |