A side-by-side comparison of Blue Owl Capital and HPS Investment Partners across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Blue Owl Capital | HPS Investment Partners | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 2021 | 2007 |
| Firm age | 5 yrs | 19 yrs |
| Roles | Gp, Lender, Public Listing | Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Giant ($100–500B) |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | fixed income-focused |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
| Strategies | 34 — Direct Lending, First Lien, Senior Secured, Unitranche | 17 — Direct Lending, First Lien, Unitranche, Senior Secured |
| Asset classes | private credit, real estate, infrastructure, private equity, secondaries, venture capital | |
Blue Owl Capital is a asset manager based in United States, while HPS Investment Partners 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.
| fixed income, private credit |
| Shared strategies | 9: Direct Lending, First Lien, Senior Secured |
| Shared asset classes | 1: private credit |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | United States | North America |
| Regions | United States, Canada, Europe, United States | North America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 25 | 6 |
| Largest fund | Blue Owl GP Stakes V | HPS Strategic Investment Partners V |
| Vintage range | 2015–2026 | — |
| Fund statuses | Closed (24), Fundraising (1) | Closed (4), Fundraising (2) |
| Performance | ||
| Avg. net IRR | 13.1% | — |
| Avg. TVPI | 1.52x | — |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 32 | 21 |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 23/100 | 32/100 |
| Network strength | 5/100 | 7/100 |
| Relationships | 2 | 3 |
| Relationship density | High | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 8% | |
| Strategy overlap | 19% | |
| Asset class overlap | 14% | |
