A side-by-side comparison of Monroe Capital and BC Partners across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
BC Partners manages roughly 1.7× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Monroe Capital | BC Partners | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | London, United Kingdom |
| Founded | 2004 | 1986 |
| Firm age | 22 yrs | 40 yrs |
| Roles | Gp | Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $23.8B | $40B |
| Market position | Large ($20–100B) | Large ($20–100B) |
| AUM ratio | 1.7× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Focused |
| Strategies | ||
Monroe Capital 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, BC Partners is larger ($23.8B vs $40B).
| 16 — Direct Lending, Senior Secured, Unitranche, Asset-Based Lending |
| 2 — Asset-Backed Finance (ABF), Senior Secured |
| Asset classes | private credit, real estate, private equity | private equity, private credit, real estate |
| Shared strategies | 1: Senior Secured |
| Shared asset classes | 3: private credit, real estate, private equity |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | United States | North America |
| Regions | United States, Canada | North America, Europe, France, Germany |
| Shared geographies | United States | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 12 | 5 |
| Largest fund | Monroe Capital Private Credit Fund V | BC Partners Fund XI |
| Vintage range | 2014–2026 | 2021–2025 |
| Fund statuses | Closed (10), Fundraising (2) | Investing (1), Closed (4) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 39 | 13 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 1.6 per $B | 0.3 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 52/100 | 0/100 |
| Network strength | 21/100 | 0/100 |
| Relationships | 14 | 0 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | Low |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 38% | |
| Strategy overlap | 6% | |
| Asset class overlap | 100% | |
| Geography overlap | 11% | |