How Investment Consultants Screen Managers on Performance

Data sourced from Dakota Marketplace, the global LP and GP intelligence platform trusted by thousands of investment professionals. Learn More | Book a Demo

Investment consultants evaluate hundreds—and in some cases thousands—of investment strategies across both public and private markets. That universe can include public equity, fixed income, liquid alternatives, private equity, venture capital, private credit, real estate, and infrastructure. Performance is usually one of the first filters consultants apply, but it is rarely as simple as ranking managers by their highest return.

Consultants want to understand whether a track record is relevant, repeatable, and appropriate for the risk taken. They compare managers with suitable peers, study results across different market environments, review sources of return, and test whether the team and process that produced the record are still in place.

For investment managers and fundraising professionals, understanding this process is essential. A strong headline return may earn attention, but a credible and well-supported performance story is what helps a strategy advance through consultant research.

The exact metrics differ by asset class. Public market strategies are generally evaluated using time-weighted returns, benchmark-relative results, volatility, drawdowns, and rolling periods. Private market strategies require cash-flow-based measures such as IRR, TVPI, DPI, and RVPI usually compared with funds of the same strategy and vintage year. In both cases, the objective is the same: determine whether the record is relevant, competitive, risk-aware, and repeatable.

Below are seven of the most important ways investment consultants screen public and private market managers on performance.

The Seven Ways Investment Consultants Screen Performance

1. Is the Track Record Relevant to the Strategy Being Offered?

The first question is not simply, “How strong was performance?” It is, “Does this performance represent the strategy being evaluated?”

For public strategies, consultants first determine whether the composite represents the product being offered. For private strategies, they determine whether the cited funds, deals, and prior-firm investments are attributable to the current team and relevant to the new vehicle.

Across both categories, consultants typically review whether the track record matches the proposed mandate across factors such as:

• Asset class
• Investment style
• Geography
• Market-cap range
• Portfolio concentration
• Use of leverage
• Liquidity profile
• Benchmark
• Fee structure

A public equity manager raising a concentrated small-cap strategy, for example, cannot rely on the performance of a broader all-cap composite without clearly explaining the differences. In private markets, a professional’s experience at a prior firm may be relevant, but consultants will examine investment attribution, decision-making authority, and whether the supporting team and process transferred.

GIPS standards place particular emphasis on fair representation, full disclosure, composite construction, and the conditions under which prior performance may be linked to a new firm’s record. Consultants may therefore ask for composite definitions, account inclusion policies, portability disclosures, and supporting documentation.

Why it matters

If the record does not accurately represent the product being offered, even excellent historical returns may carry limited weight.

2. How Has the Manager Performed Against an Appropriate Benchmark?

Absolute returns matter, but consultants generally evaluate them in context. A 12% return can be impressive in one environment and disappointing in another.

For public equity, fixed income, and liquid alternative strategies, consultants may compare performance with:

• The primary benchmark
• A style-specific index
• A peer universe
• The client’s policy benchmark

They will often review excess return over multiple periods, including one-, three-, five-, seven-, and ten-year results, as well as since-inception performance where available.

For private equity, venture capital, private credit, real estate, and infrastructure funds, the comparison typically requires more nuance. Consultants may evaluate a fund against the same strategy and vintage year using metrics such as Net IRR, TVPI, DPI, and RVPI. They may also use public market equivalent analysis to understand how private fund cash flows performed relative to a public index.

Why it matters

Benchmarking helps distinguish returns created by manager skill from returns driven primarily by market exposure, strategy selection, or a favorable vintage.

3. Has Performance Been Consistent Across Market Cycles?

A strong trailing return can hide meaningful variation within the measurement period. Consultants therefore look beyond point-to-point performance to study consistency.

Common analyses include:

• Calendar-year returns
• Rolling three- and five-year returns
• Up-market and down-market capture
• Performance during drawdowns
• Recovery following periods of stress
• Results before and after major team or process changes

A public equity or fixed income manager may have an attractive five-year record that was driven almost entirely by one exceptional year or one market exposure. A private equity, venture capital, private credit, real estate, or infrastructure manager may show strong aggregate performance while most value creation came from a single fund, one realization, or a favorable entry period.

Consultants do not necessarily expect a manager to outperform in every market. Instead, they want results to behave in a way that is consistent with the stated philosophy. A defensive strategy may lag sharply rising markets, for example, but should generally provide the downside characteristics the manager describes.

Why it matters

Consistency gives consultants more confidence that historical results reflect a repeatable process rather than one market environment or a small number of fortunate outcomes.

4. How Much Risk Did the Manager Take to Generate Returns?

Returns cannot be evaluated independently from risk. Two managers may produce similar long-term results while creating very different experiences for investors.

For public and other liquid strategies, consultants may examine:

• Volatility
• Tracking error
• Sharpe ratio
• Information ratio
• Maximum drawdown
• Downside deviation
• Beta
• Upside and downside capture

These measures help consultants assess both total risk and benchmark-relative risk. They also show whether the manager delivered enough excess return to justify active management.

For private funds, risk is less visible because holdings are not priced daily. Consultants may instead examine leverage, loss ratios, impairment rates, concentration, valuation changes, duration, sector and geographic exposure, and the proportion of value that remains unrealized. The emphasis also varies by strategy: private credit screens may focus on defaults, recoveries, and covenant protection, while real estate and infrastructure reviews may place greater weight on leverage, occupancy, development exposure, and asset-level cash flow.

A high TVPI supported mainly by unrealized value may present a different risk profile from a similar TVPI backed by substantial distributions. In the same way, a high IRR influenced by early exits or subscription-line timing requires additional context.

Why it matters

Risk-adjusted analysis helps consultants determine whether the manager generated efficient returns and whether the strategy can play its intended role in a client portfolio.

5. What Drove the Performance?

Once a manager passes the initial quantitative screen, consultants look more closely at the sources of return.

For public equity, fixed income, and liquid alternative managers, performance attribution may separate results by:

• Sector allocation
• Security selection
• Country or regional exposure
• Factor exposure
• Currency
• Duration or yield-curve positioning
• Credit quality or spread exposure

Consultants compare this attribution with the manager’s stated investment process. If a bottom-up stock picker’s outperformance came primarily from a persistent factor tilt, the consultant may question whether the results demonstrate the skill being marketed.

For private equity and venture capital funds, attribution can include:

• Revenue and EBITDA growth
• Margin expansion
• Multiple expansion or contraction
• Deleveraging
• Add-on acquisitions
• Realized versus unrealized investments
• Individual deal contribution

For private credit, real estate, and infrastructure strategies, consultants may also study interest income, defaults and recoveries, occupancy, rent growth, development gains, contracted revenue, asset sales, and the effects of leverage.

Consultants may also remove the largest winner from the track record to see how dependent aggregate performance is on one investment.

Why it matters

Attribution connects performance to process. The more clearly a manager can explain how decisions produced outcomes, the easier it is for a consultant to assess repeatability.

6. How Broadly Distributed Are the Results?

Consultants want to know whether performance was generated across the portfolio or concentrated in a small number of holdings, accounts, or funds.

For public market composites, they may review:

• Dispersion among accounts
• The number of portfolios in the composite
• The percentage of firm assets represented
• Differences caused by cash flows, restrictions, or inception dates
• Whether terminated accounts remain in the record

For private markets, consultants may examine performance by:

• Fund and vintage year
• Realized, partially realized, and unrealized investments
• Sector and geography
• Deal partner
• Entry year
• Investment size
• Realization status

They may also look for loss rates, write-offs, and the percentage of invested capital represented by the top contributors.

A concentrated strategy can still be attractive, but consultants will want to understand whether concentration is intentional, how it is controlled, and what it means for future outcomes.

Why it matters

Broad-based results typically provide stronger evidence of a repeatable investment process than a record dominated by a single account, deal, or market call.

7. Are the Returns Verifiable and Still Repeatable Today?

The final performance screen connects the numbers to the organization behind them.

Consultants may request:

• GIPS reports or other standardized presentations
• Audited financial statements
• Monthly or quarterly return histories
• Composite construction policies
• Private fund cash-flow data
• Gross and net return reconciliation
• Benchmark and valuation methodology
• Explanations of restatements or material changes

They also assess whether the people, resources, and process responsible for the track record remain in place. Key-person departures, ownership changes, rapid asset growth, new portfolio constraints, or a shift in opportunity set can all reduce the relevance of historical results.

Consultants may pay close attention to gross and net presentation as well. For public strategies, they may reconcile gross composite performance with the net return a client could reasonably expect after fees. For private strategies, they may compare gross deal-level or fund-level results with the net experience of limited partners. The SEC’s investment adviser marketing rule includes specific conditions for presenting performance, including requirements related to gross and net results. Clear methodology and consistent disclosure make a performance record easier to evaluate.

Why it matters

Consultants are underwriting future performance, not purchasing the past. A verifiable track record is valuable only if the organization still has a credible ability to execute the strategy.

Public and Private Market Performance Screens

The core objective is the same across asset classes: determine whether performance is relevant, competitive, risk-aware, and repeatable. The tools used to reach that conclusion differ.

Viewed together, these analyses allow consultants to move from a headline number to a more complete understanding of how the manager produced returns.

What Can Cause a Manager to Fail the Performance Screen?

Strong returns do not guarantee that a strategy will advance. Common concerns include:

• An inappropriate or changing benchmark
• A track record that does not match the proposed strategy
• Short performance history
• Heavy dependence on one year, holding, or deal
• Weak downside protection relative to the strategy’s objective
• High risk without sufficient excess return
• Large differences between gross and net results
• A public market record driven primarily by unintended factor, sector, duration, or credit exposure
• A private fund record supported mostly by unrealized value
• Inconsistent valuation or calculation methods
• Team turnover that weakens track-record continuity
• Incomplete data or unexplained performance revisions

No single issue automatically disqualifies every manager. Consultants will consider the strategy, its stage of development, the opportunity set, and the needs of the client. The manager’s ability to explain the record clearly and provide supporting evidence is often as important as the initial screen itself.

How Investment Managers Can Prepare for Consultant Performance Reviews

Managers can make the screening process more efficient by presenting performance in a format that is complete, consistent, and easy to compare.

Before approaching consultants, public and private market fundraising and consultant-relations teams should be prepared to:

• Use the correct benchmark and peer group
• Present gross and net results consistently
• Provide monthly, quarterly, annual, and since inception data where appropriate
• Explain periods of outperformance and underperformance
• Connect performance attribution to the investment process
• Identify the largest contributors and detractors
• Address team, ownership, or process changes directly
• Reconcile performance across decks, databases, DDQs, and consultant submissions
• Maintain documentation that supports the record

Public market managers should also be ready to provide composite definitions, monthly return histories, dispersion data, attribution, and risk statistics. Private market managers should be ready to provide fund- and investment-level cash flows, realized and unrealized attribution, valuation policies, loss ratios, and performance by strategy and vintage year.

The goal is not to remove every difficult period from the story. Consultants expect strategies to experience periods of underperformance. What matters is whether the manager can explain what happened, demonstrate that results were consistent with the process, and show why the strategy remains positioned to meet its objective.

How Dakota Marketplace Supports Consultant and Manager Research

Dakota Marketplace combines institutional investor intelligence, manager and GP profiles, fund data, and market research in one platform. This allows fundraising teams representing public or private strategies to identify relevant consultants and allocators, understand their investment preferences, and prepare more targeted outreach.

Investment professionals can use Dakota Marketplace to research:

• Investment consultants and their areas of coverage
• Institutional investors and allocation preferences
• Public and private manager profiles
• Private fund performance data
• Public and private strategy focus
• Private fund vintage year, fund size, and geographic focus
• General partner track records

For investment managers, this information helps consultant-relations and fundraising teams prioritize the right organizations, prepare for more informed conversations, and connect performance narratives with relevant investor demand.

Putting the Performance Screen in Perspective

Performance is an essential part of research for both public and private market managers, but it is only the beginning. Investment consultants also evaluate the team, philosophy, process, portfolio construction, risk management, operations, fees, capacity, liquidity, and fit within a client portfolio.

The strongest performance presentation does more than report a return. It shows that the track record is relevant to the strategy, competitive with appropriate peers, supported by understandable sources of value, and produced by a process the current organization can repeat.

For fundraising professionals, that is the central lesson: consultants are not simply looking for the highest number. They are looking for evidence that the number is credible, explainable, and durable.

Interested in researching investment consultants, institutional investors, public and private managers, and private fund performance in one place? Book a demo of Dakota Marketplace to see how investment professionals use Dakota to research the market, prioritize relevant prospects, and uncover fundraising opportunities.