A side-by-side comparison of Hamilton Lane and Antin Infrastructure Partners across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Hamilton Lane manages roughly 4.4× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Hamilton Lane | Antin Infrastructure Partners | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | France |
| Founded | 1991 | 2007 |
| Firm age | 35 yrs | 19 yrs |
| Roles | Lp, Gp, Advisor | Gp, Public Listing |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $146.3B | EUR 33.3B |
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Large ($20–100B) |
| AUM ratio | 4.4× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | infrastructure-focused |
| Diversification | Broad | Moderate |
Hamilton Lane is a asset manager based in United States, while Antin Infrastructure Partners is a asset manager based in France. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Hamilton Lane is larger ($146.3B vs EUR 33.3B).
| Strategies |
| 23 — Co-investment, Fund-of-Funds, SMA / Managed Account, Evergreen / Semi-liquid Structure |
| 7 — Value-Add, Digital Infrastructure, Transport, Renewables |
| Asset classes | private equity, private credit, real estate, secondaries, infrastructure, venture capital | infrastructure |
| Shared strategies | 1: Digital Infrastructure |
| Shared asset classes | 1: infrastructure |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | North America | Europe |
| Regions | North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East | Europe, North America |
| Shared geographies | North America, Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 19 | 10 |
| Largest fund | Hamilton Lane Secondary Fund VI | Antin Flagship Fund V |
| Vintage range | — | 2008–2022 |
| Fund statuses | Closed (6), Fundraising (13) | Closed (9), Fundraising (1) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 44 | 94 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.3 per $B | 2.8 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 60/100 | 73/100 |
| Network strength | 19/100 | 54/100 |
| Relationships | 13 | 46 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | Very high |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 23% | |
| Strategy overlap | 3% | |
| Asset class overlap | 17% | |
| Geography overlap | 50% | |