A side-by-side comparison of Oaktree Capital Management and Hamilton Lane across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Oaktree Capital Management manages roughly 1.5× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Oaktree Capital Management | Hamilton Lane | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 1995 | 1991 |
| Firm age | 31 yrs | 35 yrs |
| Roles | Gp | Lp, Gp, Advisor |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $224B | $146.3B |
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Giant ($100–500B) |
| AUM ratio | 1.5× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
| Strategies | ||
Oaktree Capital Management 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, Oaktree Capital Management is larger ($224B vs $146.3B).
| 18 — Distressed Debt, Opportunistic Credit, Direct Lending, Senior Secured Loans |
| 23 — Co-investment, Fund-of-Funds, SMA / Managed Account, Evergreen / Semi-liquid Structure |
| Asset classes | private credit, fixed income, private equity, real estate, other | private equity, private credit, real estate, secondaries, infrastructure, venture capital |
| Shared strategies | 1: Direct Lending |
| Shared asset classes | 3: private credit, private equity, real estate |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | North America | North America |
| Regions | North America, Europe, Emerging Markets, Global | North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East |
| Shared geographies | North America, Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 5 | 19 |
| Largest fund | Oaktree Opportunities Fund XII | Hamilton Lane Secondary Fund VI |
| Fund statuses | Closed (5) | Closed (6), Fundraising (13) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 24 | 44 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.1 per $B | 0.3 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 49/100 | 60/100 |
| Network strength | 9/100 | 19/100 |
| Relationships | 11 | 13 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 28% | |
| Strategy overlap | 3% | |
| Asset class overlap | 38% | |
| Geography overlap | 33% | |