A side-by-side comparison of Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board manages roughly 8.1× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Canada Pension Plan Investment Board | Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Public Pension Fund | Public Pension Fund |
| Country | Canada | USA - CA |
| Founded | 1997 | 1937 |
| Firm age | 29 yrs | 89 yrs |
| Roles | Lp | Lp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | CAD 714.43B | $87.97B |
| Market position | Mega ($500B+) | Large ($20–100B) |
| AUM ratio | 8.1× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Diversified |
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is a public pension fund based in Canada, while Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association is a public pension fund based in USA - CA. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is larger (CAD 714.43B vs $87.97B).
| Strategies |
| 20 — Buyout, Growth Equity, Co-investment, Secondaries (LP-led) |
| Asset classes | private equity, real estate, infrastructure, fixed income, private credit, secondaries | private equity, private credit, real estate, infrastructure |
| Shared asset classes | 4: private equity, real estate, infrastructure, private credit |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | Canada | North America |
| Regions | Canada, United States, India, Japan | United States, North America, Europe, Asia |
| Shared geographies | United States | |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 80 | 0 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.1 per $B | 0.0 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 63/100 | 8/100 |
| Network strength | 31/100 | 1/100 |
| Relationships | 25 | 1 |
| Relationship density | High | Low |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 22% | |
| Asset class overlap | 67% | |
| Geography overlap | 8% | |
