A side-by-side comparison of Hamilton Lane and Golub Capital across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Hamilton Lane manages roughly 1.6× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Hamilton Lane | Golub Capital | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 1991 | 1994 |
| Firm age | 35 yrs | 32 yrs |
| Roles | Lp, Gp, Advisor | Gp, Lender |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $146.3B | $90B |
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Large ($20–100B) |
| AUM ratio | 1.6× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
| Strategies | ||
Hamilton Lane is a asset manager based in United States, while Golub Capital is a asset manager based in United States. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Hamilton Lane is larger ($146.3B vs $90B).
| 23 — Co-investment, Fund-of-Funds, SMA / Managed Account, Evergreen / Semi-liquid Structure |
| 13 — Direct Lending, Unitranche, First Lien, Second Lien |
| Asset classes | private equity, private credit, real estate, secondaries, infrastructure, venture capital | private credit, fixed income, secondaries, private equity |
| Shared strategies | 7: Co-investment, Direct Lending, GP-led Secondaries |
| Shared asset classes | 3: private equity, private credit, secondaries |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | North America | United States |
| Regions | North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East | United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France |
| Shared geographies | Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 19 | 7 |
| Largest fund | Hamilton Lane Secondary Fund VI | GEMS Fund 6, L.P. |
| Vintage range | — | 2015–2024 |
| Fund statuses | Closed (6), Fundraising (13) | Closed (7) |
| Performance | ||
| Avg. net IRR | — | 9.8% |
| Avg. TVPI | — | 1.58x |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 44 | 33 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.3 per $B | 0.4 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 60/100 | 46/100 |
| Network strength | 19/100 | 17/100 |
| Relationships | 13 | 11 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 25% | |
| Strategy overlap | 13% | |
| Asset class overlap | 43% | |
| Geography overlap | 11% | |
