A side-by-side comparison of Manulife Investment Management and Schroders across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Manulife Investment Management manages roughly 1.4× the assets of the other firm.
Both firms are active in 3 shared asset classes out of 5 tracked between them.
| Manulife Investment Management | Schroders | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | Canada | United Kingdom |
| Founded | 1980 | 1804 |
| Firm age | 46 yrs | 222 yrs |
| Roles | Lp | Lp, Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | CAD 1.11T | EUR 766.7B |
| Market position | Mega ($500B+) | Mega ($500B+) |
| AUM ratio | 1.4× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Diversified | Broad |
| Strategies | ||
Manulife Investment Management is a asset manager based in Canada, while Schroders is a asset manager based in United Kingdom. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Manulife Investment Management is larger (CAD 1.11T vs EUR 766.7B).
| 28 — Mid-Market Buyout, Buyout, Growth Equity, Co-investment |
| Asset classes | private equity, private credit, real estate, fixed income | private equity, real estate, infrastructure, fixed income, cash, private credit, venture capital, other |
| Shared asset classes | 4: private equity, private credit, real estate, fixed income |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | North America | United Kingdom |
| Regions | North America, Europe, Asia, Global | United Kingdom, United States, Europe, Asia |
| Shared geographies | Europe, Asia, Emerging Markets | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 0 | 28 |
| Largest fund | — | Schroders Capital Private Equity Global Direct IV |
| Vintage range | — | 2023–2026 |
| Fund statuses | — | Fundraising (26), Closed (2) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 0 | 38 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.0 per $B | 0.0 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 0/100 | 23/100 |
| Network strength | 0/100 | 3/100 |
| Relationships | 0 | 2 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | High |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 31% | |
| Asset class overlap | 50% | |
| Geography overlap | 43% | |