A side-by-side comparison of Wellington Management and Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) across firm type, scale, strategy, and geography.
Both firms are active in 1 shared asset class out of 6 tracked between them.
| Wellington Management | Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) | |
|---|---|---|
| Basics | ||
| Firm type | Asset Manager | Asset Manager |
| Country | United States | United Kingdom |
| Founded | 1928 | 1987 |
| Firm age | 98 yrs | 39 yrs |
| Roles | Lp, Gp, Service Provider, Advisor, Lender | Gp |
| Scale & AUM | ||
| AUM | $1.33T | GBP 1.2T |
| Market position | Mega ($500B+) | Mega ($500B+) |
| AUM ratio | 1.1× larger | |
| Strategy & Focus | ||
| Investment style | Multi-asset | Multi-asset |
| Diversification | Broad | Broad |
Wellington Management is a asset manager based in United States, 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, Wellington Management is larger ($1.33T vs GBP 1.2T).
| Strategies |
| 10 — CLOs, Private Placings, Commercial Real Estate Debt, Seed |
| Asset classes | fixed income, other, private credit, venture capital, hedge funds, secondaries, private equity | private equity, private credit, real estate, infrastructure, other |
| Shared asset classes | 3: other, private credit, private equity |
| Geography | ||
| Geographic bias | North America | Europe |
| Regions | North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, North America | North America, Europe, North America, Europe |
| Shared geographies | North America, Europe, North America | |
| Fund Portfolio | ||
| Published funds | 10 | 0 |
| Largest fund | Wellington Hadley Harbor IV | — |
| Vintage range | 2019–2026 | — |
| Fund statuses | Fundraising (3), Closed (7) | — |
| Team | ||
| Total contacts | 22 | 4 |
| Team-to-AUM ratio | 0.0 per $B | 0.0 per $B |
| Network & Relationships | ||
| Connectivity | 8/100 | 13/100 |
| Network strength | 1/100 | 3/100 |
| Relationships | 1 | 2 |
| Relationship density | Moderate | Moderate |
| Network maturity | Emerging | Emerging |
| Similarity | ||
| Overall similarity | 32% | |
| Asset class overlap | 33% | |
| Geography overlap | 67% | |