A side-by-side comparison of Blue Owl Capital and Oaktree Capital Management across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Blue Owl Capital manages roughly 1.4× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Blue Owl Capital | Oaktree Capital Management | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 2021 | 1995 |
| Firm age | 5 yrs | 31 yrs |
| Roles | Gp, Lender, Public Listing | Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $319B | $224B |
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Giant ($100–500B) |
| AUM ratio | 1.4× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
Blue Owl Capital is a asset manager based in United States, while Oaktree Capital Management is a asset manager based in United States. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Blue Owl Capital is larger ($319B vs $224B).
| Strategies |
| 34 — Direct Lending, First Lien, Senior Secured, Unitranche |
| 18 — Distressed Debt, Opportunistic Credit, Direct Lending, Senior Secured Loans |
| Asset classes | private credit, real estate, infrastructure, private equity, secondaries, venture capital | private credit, fixed income, private equity, real estate, other |
| Shared strategies | 7: Direct Lending, Asset-Backed Finance (ABF), CLOs |
| Shared asset classes | 3: private credit, real estate, private equity |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | United States | North America |
| Regions | United States, Canada, Europe, United States | North America, Europe, Emerging Markets, Global |
| Shared geographies | Europe, Europe, Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 25 | 5 |
| Largest fund | Blue Owl GP Stakes V | Oaktree Opportunities Fund XII |
| Vintage range | 2015–2026 | — |
| Fund statuses | Closed (24), Fundraising (1) | Closed (5) |
| Performance | ||
| Avg. net IRR | 13.1% | — |
| Avg. TVPI | 1.52x | — |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 32 | 24 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.1 per $B | 0.1 per $B |
| 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 | 27% | |
| Strategy overlap | 13% | |
| Asset class overlap | 38% | |
| Geography overlap | 7% | |
