How to Compare AIF Fund Managers

The first instinct when evaluating an AIF is to look at the current fund's performance since inception. That's a reasonable starting point, but it's an incomplete one. A fund that's two years old hasn't been tested by a full market cycle — it hasn't seen a rate hike, a liquidity crunch, or a sector-wide correction. What matters more is the track record of the people running it, across previous funds, previous employers, and ideally across more than one market cycle.

For a Category I venture or growth-stage fund, this means asking how many portfolio companies from the manager's earlier funds actually returned capital — not just how many raised a follow-on round at a higher valuation, which is a very different and much weaker signal. For a Category II private credit fund, it means asking about default rates and recovery rates on stressed positions, not just the headline yield on performing loans. For a Category III fund trading listed markets, it means looking at performance in down years specifically, since anyone can generate returns in a rising market — the real test is what happens when the market turns.

Consistency matters more than any single standout year. A fund manager who's delivered steady, risk-adjusted returns across two or three vintages is a fundamentally different proposition than one riding a single hot year that happened to coincide with a favorable market.Steady results over time matter more than one lucky year. Check the results of each separate fund year instead of looking at one mixed score. A mixed score can hide a bad recent fund by using the good name of an older one.

Assets under management gets treated as a proxy for trust — the logic being that if a manager has raised a large fund, sophisticated investors must have already done the diligence. There's some truth to that, but AUM cuts both ways depending on the strategy.

For a Category I venture fund investing in early-stage or SME opportunities, a fund that's grown too large for its stated strategy is a genuine warning sign. Early-stage investing doesn't scale linearly — there's only so much genuinely attractive deal flow in a given space at a given time, and a fund forced to deploy more capital than the opportunity set can absorb often ends up writing larger checks into weaker companies just to put money to work. Alpha AMC's VentureX Fund I, for instance, deliberately caps its size relative to its pre-IPO SME strategy and spreads capital across roughly 80 portfolio companies rather than concentrating it — a structural choice that keeps AUM aligned with the actual depth of opportunity in that segment, rather than chasing scale for its own sake.

For a Category II private credit or structured debt fund, on the other hand, larger AUM can genuinely mean better deal access, stronger negotiating leverage with borrowers, and more diversification across positions. The right AUM range depends entirely on the strategy — there's no universal "bigger is better" or "smaller is better" rule. What matters is whether the fund's size matches what its strategy can actually absorb without diluting quality.

Fee comparison in AIFs is more complex than in mutual funds, because the structure itself varies meaningfully from fund to fund. Most AIFs charge a management fee — typically in the 1.5% to 2.5% range annually — plus a performance fee, or carry, usually somewhere between 10% and 20% of profits above a hurdle rate.

The hurdle rate is where a lot of investors lose the thread. A fund charging a 20% carry above a 12% hurdle is structurally very different from one charging the same 20% carry above an 8% hurdle — the first only takes performance fees once it's cleared a meaningfully higher bar, meaning the manager's incentives are more tightly aligned with genuinely strong outperformance rather than just beating a low bar. Always ask for the hurdle rate alongside the carry percentage; either number on its own is close to meaningless.

Watch too for how carry is calculated — whether it's charged on a deal-by-deal basis or on the overall fund performance, and whether there's a high-water mark that prevents the manager from earning performance fees twice on the same gains. These structural details rarely show up in a marketing deck, but they materially affect what an investor actually keeps after fees, especially in funds with multiple capital calls and drawdowns over a long lock-in period.

None of these three factors — track record, AUM, and fee structure — should be evaluated in isolation. A manager with an excellent track record but a fee structure that erodes most of the alpha isn't actually a good pick. A fund with reasonable fees but a manager whose AUM has outgrown their strategy's capacity carries its own risk. The right approach is to weigh all three against the specific category and strategy of the fund, and against your own investment horizon.

The best AIF fund managers tend to be transparent about all three of these upfront — sharing year on year  performance, being candid about why their fund is sized the way it is, and disclosing the full fee structure including hurdle rates without needing to be asked twice. That transparency is often as strong a signal as the numbers themselves.