A side-by-side comparison of Hamilton Lane and AQR Capital Management across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
AQR Capital Management manages roughly 1.6× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Hamilton Lane | AQR Capital Management | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 1991 | 1998 |
| Firm age | 35 yrs | 28 yrs |
| Roles | Lp, Gp, Advisor | Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $146.3B | $237.8B |
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Giant ($100–500B) |
| AUM ratio | 1.6× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | hedge funds-focused |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
| Strategies | ||
Hamilton Lane is a asset manager based in United States, while AQR 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, AQR Capital Management is larger ($146.3B vs $237.8B).
| 23 — Co-investment, Fund-of-Funds, SMA / Managed Account, Evergreen / Semi-liquid Structure |
| 15 — Quantitative, Equity Market Neutral, Managed Futures / CTA, Multi-strategy |
| Asset classes | private equity, private credit, real estate, secondaries, infrastructure, venture capital | hedge funds, other |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | North America | North America |
| Regions | North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East | North America, Europe, Asia, South Africa |
| Shared geographies | North America, Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 19 | 22 |
| Largest fund | Hamilton Lane Secondary Fund VI | AQR Alternative Risk Premia Fund |
| Fund statuses | Closed (6), Fundraising (13) | Fundraising (22) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 44 | 37 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.3 per $B | 0.2 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 60/100 | 0/100 |
| Network strength | 19/100 | 0/100 |
| Relationships | 13 | 0 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | Low |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 19% | |
| Geography overlap | 29% | |