A side-by-side comparison of Schroders and Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) manages roughly 1.6× the assets of the other firm.
Both firms are active in 4 shared asset classes out of 5 tracked between them.
| Schroders | Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United Kingdom | United Kingdom |
| Founded | 1804 | 1987 |
| Firm age | 222 yrs | 39 yrs |
| Roles | Lp, Gp | Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | EUR 766.7B | GBP 1.2T |
| Market position | Mega ($500B+) | Mega ($500B+) |
| AUM ratio | 1.6× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
| Strategies | ||
Schroders is a asset manager based in United Kingdom, while Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) is a asset manager based in United Kingdom. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) is larger (EUR 766.7B vs GBP 1.2T).
| 28 — Mid-Market Buyout, Buyout, Growth Equity, Co-investment |
| Asset classes | private equity, real estate, infrastructure, fixed income, cash, private credit, venture capital, other | private equity, private credit, real estate, infrastructure, other |
| Shared asset classes | 5: private equity, real estate, infrastructure, private credit, other |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | United Kingdom | Europe |
| Regions | United Kingdom, United States, Europe, Asia | North America, Europe, North America, Europe |
| Shared geographies | Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 28 | 0 |
| Largest fund | Schroders Capital Private Equity Global Direct IV | — |
| Vintage range | 2023–2026 | — |
| Fund statuses | Fundraising (26), Closed (2) | — |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 38 | 4 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.0 per $B | 0.0 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 23/100 | 13/100 |
| Network strength | 3/100 | 3/100 |
| Relationships | 2 | 2 |
| Relationship density | High | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 30% | |
| Asset class overlap | 63% | |
| Geography overlap | 17% | |