A side-by-side comparison of Schroders and Wellington Management across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Wellington Management manages roughly 1.7× the assets of the other firm.
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Schroders | Wellington Management | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United Kingdom | United States |
| Founded | 1804 | 1928 |
| Firm age | 222 yrs | 98 yrs |
| Roles | Lp, Gp | Lp, Gp, Service Provider, Advisor, Lender |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | EUR 766.7B | $1.33T |
| Market position | Mega ($500B+) | Mega ($500B+) |
| AUM ratio | 1.7× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
Schroders is a asset manager based in United Kingdom, 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 (EUR 766.7B vs $1.33T).
| Strategies |
| 28 — Mid-Market Buyout, Buyout, Growth Equity, Co-investment |
| 10 — CLOs, Private Placings, Commercial Real Estate Debt, Seed |
| Asset classes | private equity, real estate, infrastructure, fixed income, cash, private credit, venture capital, other | fixed income, other, private credit, venture capital, hedge funds, secondaries, private equity |
| Shared strategies | 2: GP-led Secondaries, Commercial Real Estate Debt |
| Shared asset classes | 5: private equity, fixed income, private credit, venture capital, other |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | United Kingdom | North America |
| Regions | United Kingdom, United States, Europe, Asia | North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, North America |
| Shared geographies | Europe | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 28 | 10 |
| Largest fund | Schroders Capital Private Equity Global Direct IV | Wellington Hadley Harbor IV |
| Vintage range | 2023–2026 | 2019–2026 |
| Fund statuses | Fundraising (26), Closed (2) | Fundraising (3), Closed (7) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 38 | 22 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.0 per $B | 0.0 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 23/100 | 8/100 |
| Network strength | 3/100 | 1/100 |
| Relationships | 2 | 1 |
| Relationship density | High | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 28% | |
| Strategy overlap | 3% | |
| Asset class overlap | 50% | |
| Geography overlap | 14% | |