A side-by-side comparison of Blue Owl Capital and Lone Pine Capital across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Blue Owl Capital | Lone Pine Capital | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 2021 | 1997 |
| Firm age | 5 yrs | 29 yrs |
| Roles | Gp, Lender, Public Listing | Gp, Advisor |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Mid ($5–20B) |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | private equity-focused |
| Diversification | Broad | Moderate |
| 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 Lone Pine Capital 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 equity, hedge funds |
| Shared asset classes | 1: private equity |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | United States | North America |
| Regions | United States, Canada, Europe, United States | North America, Europe, Global, North America |
| Shared geographies | Europe, Europe, Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 25 | 1 |
| Largest fund | Blue Owl GP Stakes V | Lone Mountain Pine Strategy |
| Vintage range | 2015–2026 | 2025 |
| Fund statuses | Closed (24), Fundraising (1) | Investing (1) |
| Performance | ||
| Avg. net IRR | 13.1% | — |
| Avg. TVPI | 1.52x | — |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 32 | 8 |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 23/100 | 0/100 |
| Network strength | 5/100 | 0/100 |
| Relationships | 2 | 0 |
| Relationship density | High | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 4% | |
| Asset class overlap | 14% | |
| Geography overlap | 7% | |
