A side-by-side comparison of Russell Investments and Wellington Management across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Wellington Management manages roughly 3.2× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Russell Investments | Wellington Management | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 1936 | 1928 |
| Firm age | 90 yrs | 98 yrs |
| Roles | Gp, Advisor | Lp, Gp, Service Provider, Advisor, Lender |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $416B | $1.33T |
| Market position | Giant ($100–500B) | Mega ($500B+) |
| AUM ratio | 3.2× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
Russell Investments is a asset manager based in United States, while Wellington Management is a asset manager based in United States. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Wellington Management is larger ($416B vs $1.33T).
| Strategies |
| 10 — CLOs, Private Placings, Commercial Real Estate Debt, Seed |
| Asset classes | private equity, private credit, real estate, hedge funds, infrastructure, venture capital, fixed income | fixed income, other, private credit, venture capital, hedge funds, secondaries, private equity |
| Shared asset classes | 5: private equity, private credit, hedge funds, venture capital, fixed income |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | Global | North America |
| Regions | North America, Europe, Asia, Global | North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, North America |
| Shared geographies | North America, Europe, North America | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 0 | 10 |
| Largest fund | — | Wellington Hadley Harbor IV |
| Vintage range | — | 2019–2026 |
| Fund statuses | — | Fundraising (3), Closed (7) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 3 | 22 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.0 per $B | 0.0 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 8/100 | 8/100 |
| Network strength | 2/100 | 1/100 |
| Relationships | 1 | 1 |
| Relationship density | High | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 28% | |
| Asset class overlap | 56% | |
| Geography overlap | 40% | |