A side-by-side comparison of Monroe Capital and Golub Capital across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Golub Capital manages roughly 3.8× the assets of the other firm.
| Monroe Capital | Golub Capital | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 2004 | 1994 |
| Firm age | 22 yrs | 32 yrs |
| Roles | Gp | Gp, Lender |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $23.8B | $90B |
| Market position | Large ($20–100B) | Large ($20–100B) |
| AUM ratio | 3.8× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
| Strategies | ||
Monroe Capital 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, Golub Capital is larger ($23.8B vs $90B).
| 16 — Direct Lending, Senior Secured, Unitranche, Asset-Based Lending |
| 13 — Direct Lending, Unitranche, First Lien, Second Lien |
| Asset classes | private credit, real estate, private equity | private credit, fixed income, secondaries, private equity |
| Shared strategies | 7: Direct Lending, Senior Secured, Unitranche |
| Shared asset classes | 2: private credit, private equity |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | United States | United States |
| Regions | United States, Canada | United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France |
| Shared geographies | United States | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 12 | 7 |
| Largest fund | Monroe Capital Private Credit Fund V | GEMS Fund 6, L.P. |
| Vintage range | 2014–2026 | 2015–2024 |
| Fund statuses | Closed (10), Fundraising (2) | Closed (7) |
| Performance | ||
| Avg. net IRR | — | 9.8% |
| Avg. TVPI | — | 1.58x |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 39 | 33 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 1.6 per $B | 0.4 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 52/100 | 46/100 |
| Network strength | 21/100 | 17/100 |
| Relationships | 14 | 11 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 33% | |
| Strategy overlap | 32% | |
| Asset class overlap | 40% | |
| Geography overlap | 14% | |