A side-by-side comparison of Antin Infrastructure Partners and Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) manages roughly 36.0× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Antin Infrastructure Partners | Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | France | United Kingdom |
| Founded | 2007 | 1987 |
| Firm age | 19 yrs | 39 yrs |
| Roles | Gp, Public Listing | Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | EUR 33.3B | GBP 1.2T |
| Market position | Large ($20–100B) | Mega ($500B+) |
| AUM ratio | 36.0× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | infrastructure-focused | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Moderate | Broad |
Antin Infrastructure Partners is a asset manager based in France, while Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) is a asset manager based in United Kingdom. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) is larger (EUR 33.3B vs GBP 1.2T).
| Strategies |
| 7 — Value-Add, Digital Infrastructure, Transport, Renewables |
| Asset classes | infrastructure | private equity, private credit, real estate, infrastructure, other |
| Shared asset classes | 1: infrastructure |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | Europe | Europe |
| Regions | Europe, North America | North America, Europe, North America, Europe |
| Shared geographies | Europe, North America | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 10 | 0 |
| Largest fund | Antin Flagship Fund V | — |
| Vintage range | 2008–2022 | — |
| Fund statuses | Closed (9), Fundraising (1) | — |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 94 | 4 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 2.8 per $B | 0.0 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 73/100 | 13/100 |
| Network strength | 54/100 | 3/100 |
| Relationships | 46 | 2 |
| Relationship density | Very high | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 27% | |
| Asset class overlap | 20% | |
| Geography overlap | 100% | |