A side-by-side comparison of Blue Owl Capital and Farallon Capital Management across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Blue Owl Capital | Farallon Capital Management | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 2021 | 1986 |
| Firm age | 5 yrs | 40 yrs |
| Roles | Gp, Lender, Public Listing | Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Large ($20–100B) |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Diversified |
| Strategies | 34 — Direct Lending, First Lien, Senior Secured, Unitranche | |
| Asset classes | private credit, real estate, infrastructure, private equity, secondaries, venture capital | |
Blue Owl Capital is a asset manager based in United States, while Farallon Capital Management is a asset manager based in United States. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
AUM figures are not fully available for both firms on DataBane yet.
| private credit, real estate, hedge funds |
| Shared asset classes | 2: private credit, real estate |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | United States | Global |
| Regions | United States, Canada, Europe, United States | North America, Europe, Asia, Global |
| Shared geographies | Europe, Europe, Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 25 | 0 |
| Largest fund | Blue Owl GP Stakes V | — |
| Vintage range | 2015–2026 | — |
| Fund statuses | Closed (24), Fundraising (1) | — |
| Performance | ||
| Avg. net IRR | 13.1% | — |
| Avg. TVPI | 1.52x | — |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 32 | 13 |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 23/100 | 0/100 |
| Network strength | 5/100 | 0/100 |
| Relationships | 2 | 0 |
| Relationship density | High | High |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 8% | |
| Asset class overlap | 29% | |
| Geography overlap | 15% | |