A side-by-side comparison of Viking Global Investors and New Jersey Division of Investment across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
New Jersey Division of Investment manages roughly 1.7× the assets of the other firm.
| Viking Global Investors | New Jersey Division of Investment | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Investment Company | Investment Company |
| Country | United States | United States |
| Founded | 1999 | 1950 |
| Firm age | 27 yrs | 76 yrs |
| Roles | Lp | Lp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $57B | $95.7B |
| Market position | Large ($20–100B) | Large ($20–100B) |
| AUM ratio | 1.7× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | private equity-focused | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Moderate | Broad |
Viking Global Investors is a investment company based in United States, while New Jersey Division of Investment is a investment company based in United States. This page compares their firm type, assets under management, strategies, and geographic focus.
By reported AUM, New Jersey Division of Investment is larger ($57B vs $95.7B).
No overlapping asset classes — these firms operate in entirely separate markets.
| Strategies |
| 55 — Buyout, Mid-Market Buyout, Growth Equity, Co-investment |
| Asset classes | private equity, private credit | private equity, private credit, real estate, cash, infrastructure, fixed income, hedge funds, other, venture capital |
| Shared asset classes | 2: private equity, private credit |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | Global | Europe |
| Regions | North America, Europe, Asia, Global | United States, North America, Europe, Asia |
| Shared geographies | North America, Europe, Asia | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 0 | 8 |
| Largest fund | — | ICG Europe Fund IX |
| Vintage range | — | 2025 |
| Fund statuses | — | Investing (8) |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 10 | 34 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.2 per $B | 0.4 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 0/100 | 35/100 |
| Network strength | 0/100 | 43/100 |
| Relationships | 0 | 16 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | Very high |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 28% | |
| Asset class overlap | 22% | |
| Geography overlap | 57% | |
