A side-by-side comparison of Hamilton Lane and BC Partners across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Hamilton Lane manages roughly 3.7× the assets of the other firm.
Both firms are active in 3 shared asset classes out of 3 tracked between them.
| Hamilton Lane | BC Partners | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | London, United Kingdom |
| Founded | 1991 | 1986 |
| Firm age | 35 yrs | 40 yrs |
| Roles | Lp, Gp, Advisor | Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $146.3B | $40B |
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Large ($20–100B) |
| AUM ratio | 3.7× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Focused |
| Strategies | ||
Hamilton Lane is a asset manager based in United States, while BC Partners is a asset manager based in London, United Kingdom. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Hamilton Lane is larger ($146.3B vs $40B).
| 23 — Co-investment, Fund-of-Funds, SMA / Managed Account, Evergreen / Semi-liquid Structure |
| 2 — Asset-Backed Finance (ABF), Senior Secured |
| Asset classes | private equity, private credit, real estate, secondaries, infrastructure, venture capital | private equity, private credit, real estate |
| Shared strategies | 1: Senior Secured |
| Shared asset classes | 3: private equity, private credit, real estate |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | North America | North America |
| Regions | North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East | North America, Europe, France, Germany |
| Shared geographies | North America, Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 19 | 5 |
| Largest fund | Hamilton Lane Secondary Fund VI | BC Partners Fund XI |
| Vintage range | — | 2021–2025 |
| Fund statuses | Closed (6), Fundraising (13) | Investing (1), Closed (4) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 44 | 13 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.3 per $B | 0.3 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 | 25% | |
| Strategy overlap | 4% | |
| Asset class overlap | 50% | |
| Geography overlap | 20% | |