A side-by-side comparison of Monroe Capital and Hamilton Lane across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Hamilton Lane manages roughly 6.1× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Monroe Capital | Hamilton Lane | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 2004 | 1991 |
| Firm age | 22 yrs | 35 yrs |
| Roles | Gp | Lp, Gp, Advisor |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $23.8B | $146.3B |
| Market position | Large ($20–100B) | Giant ($100–500B) |
| AUM ratio | 6.1× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
| Strategies | ||
Monroe Capital is a asset manager based in United States, while Hamilton Lane 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 ($23.8B vs $146.3B).
| 16 — Direct Lending, Senior Secured, Unitranche, Asset-Based Lending |
| 23 — Co-investment, Fund-of-Funds, SMA / Managed Account, Evergreen / Semi-liquid Structure |
| Asset classes | private credit, real estate, private equity | private equity, private credit, real estate, secondaries, infrastructure, venture capital |
| Shared strategies | 4: Direct Lending, Senior Secured, SMA / Managed Account |
| Shared asset classes | 3: private credit, real estate, private equity |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | United States | North America |
| Regions | United States, Canada | North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 12 | 19 |
| Largest fund | Monroe Capital Private Credit Fund V | Hamilton Lane Secondary Fund VI |
| Vintage range | 2014–2026 | — |
| Fund statuses | Closed (10), Fundraising (2) | Closed (6), Fundraising (13) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 39 | 44 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 1.6 per $B | 0.3 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 52/100 | 60/100 |
| Network strength | 21/100 | 19/100 |
| Relationships | 14 | 13 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 23% | |
| Strategy overlap | 8% | |
| Asset class overlap | 50% | |
