ARES vs OWL: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

Same yardstick, side by side (as of September 2026). Valuation lined up like this is most meaningful for two names in the same corner of the market, which these are. Figures are approximate; verify before investing.

Reading it: OWL is the cheaper of the two on forward earnings, but cheaper is not the same as better. Pair the valuation with growth (how far the forward P/E sits below the trailing P/E) and risk (beta) before you decide.

The metrics above tell you which is the marginally better business. The bigger risk for most people is not picking the slightly worse stock, it is over-concentrating. ARES and OWL share themes, so owning both, or adding either to what you already hold, can quietly push a large share of your portfolio into one bet.

This is the part a generic comparison page cannot answer, because it depends on what you own. Connect your brokerage and Walnut shows your real, combined ARES and OWL exposure, flags overlap with your existing positions, and tells you if adding one would tip you past a concentration you are comfortable with, read-only by default, with your login staying at your broker. Walnut is not an investment adviser.

Ares Management is one of the world's largest alternative investment managers, overseeing roughly $644 billion of assets under management as of early 2026 across four groups: credit (its dominant business at over 60% of AUM, spanning direct lending, high yield, and alternative credit), real assets (roughly 20% of AUM, including logistics, data centers, and infrastructure), private equity, and other alternatives. The firm earns most of its economics from recurring management fees on long-dated capital, supplemented by performance fees when funds hit return targets, and it distributes a large share of that cash to shareholders as dividends.

Full ARES guide

Blue Owl Capital Inc. is an alternative asset manager that ended Q1 2026 with about $315 billion in assets under management across three franchises: Credit (direct lending, alternative credit, and investment-grade credit), GP Strategic Capital (minority stakes in other private-market managers), and Real Assets (net-lease real estate and digital infrastructure). A defining feature is that a large share of its capital is permanent or long-dated, which makes fee-related earnings unusually stable versus peers that lean on episodic fund launches. The firm grew AUM past $300 billion in late 2025 and raised roughly $56 billion of new commitments that year, with the private-wealth channel a major driver.

Full OWL guide

Both fit overlapping themes, but they are not interchangeable. The useful comparison is which set of drivers and risks you want exposure to.

• ARES drivers: Private credit leadership; Fee-related earnings growth.
• OWL drivers: Permanent-capital fee engine; Private-credit and private-wealth growth.

A faster-growing, richer-valued name usually swings harder, so it suits a longer horizon and a higher tolerance for volatility; a steadier, more cash-generative business suits a more conservative or income-minded investor. The honest test is which set of risks you could hold through a drawdown: Ares is heavily concentrated in credit, so a broad rise in defaults, spread compression, or a downturn in private-credit demand would pressure both fees and asset marks. For OWL, blue Owl is heavily exposed to private credit, so a deterioration in middle-market borrower credit quality or a wave of defaults could pressure fee-paying AUM, the value of its BDC relationships, and sentiment.

Growth-minded investors who believe the theme has years to run tend to accept the richer multiple for more upside; value-minded investors lean toward the cheaper forward earnings and steadier profile. Pick ARES if you believe its drivers more; OWL if you believe its. Many investors hold both, but since they share themes, that is a concentrated bet, not diversification. Decide deliberately and check overlap. For the full detail, see the ARES and OWL guides.

ARES. ARES trades at a premium trailing earnings multiple (around 55x TTM but closer to 19x on forward estimates), reflecting expectations of continued double-digit fee growth. The firm pays an annual dividend of about $5.40 per share after a roughly 20% hike, a yield near 4.3%. Q1 2026 EPS of $1.24 and revenue both came in below analyst estimates even as AUM and fundraising set records.

OWL. Blue Owl's revenue grew about 25 percent in 2025 to roughly $2.87 billion, and AUM crossed $315 billion by Q1 2026. The shares fell sharply in 2026, pushing the dividend yield to around 10 percent and leaving the stock below typical sell-side price targets near the mid-$17 range. Valuation therefore hinges on whether investors weight the durable fee stream or the private-credit and rate risks more heavily.

Headline figures (approximate, July 2026): ARES shows market cap ~$37.5B, assets under management ~$644B, fee-paying aum ~$400B, q1 2026 revenue ~$1.27B; OWL shows revenue (ttm) ~$3.1B, revenue (fy2025) ~$2.87B, aum (q1 2026) ~$315B, fee-related earnings (q1 2026) ~$394M.

ARES and OWL are related but distinct: same themes, different businesses and risks. Neither wins in the abstract; the right pick is whichever thesis you actually believe, sized so you are not over-concentrated in one theme. Walnut can show your combined ARES and OWL exposure against your real portfolio. It is not an investment adviser.