Data as of Oct 16, 2026Based on 165 AI responses
Reviewed by Dimitry Apollonsky
AI summary
Tiger Global and Coatue are nearly tied as recommendations for crossover funds investing across private and public markets. For private credit alternatives to equity rounds, Ares Management and Blue Owl are instead the most common answers.
Rank and Mentioned in · since Jul 5
| # | Brand | Recommended for | Mentioned in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | high-volume crossover investments in late-stage private and pre-IPO technology companies | high-volume crossover investments in late-stage private and pre-IPO technology companies | 38% |
| 2 | technology-focused crossover funding across private venture rounds and public tech equities | technology-focused crossover funding across private venture rounds and public tech equities | 38% |
| 3 | concentrated public and private growth investments across software and internet companies | concentrated public and private growth investments across software and internet companies | 36% |
| 4 | growth-stage crossover investments spanning pre-IPO financing and public market holdings | growth-stage crossover investments spanning pre-IPO financing and public market holdings | 34% |
| 5 | growth-stage technology investments held through initial public offerings | growth-stage technology investments held through initial public offerings | 30% |
| 6 | direct lending and flexible private credit facilities for middle-market companies | direct lending and flexible private credit facilities for middle-market companies | 29% |
| 7 | bespoke direct lending and unitranche financing for sponsor-backed companies | bespoke direct lending and unitranche financing for sponsor-backed companies | 29% |
| 8 | late-stage private growth equity combined with public equity investment strategies | late-stage private growth equity combined with public equity investment strategies | 28% |
| 9 | flexible unitranche lending and recurring-revenue facilities for middle-market borrowers | flexible unitranche lending and recurring-revenue facilities for middle-market borrowers | 28% |
| 10 | public equity hedge strategies that cross over into private equity stakes | public equity hedge strategies that cross over into private equity stakes | 27% |
| 11 | 25% | ||
| 12 | 24% | ||
| 13 | 24% | ||
| 14 | 24% | ||
| 15 | 24% |
What’s changing · since July
Since July, Broadridgerising has become the most named option for institutional proxy voting services.
Week of Sep 21–27 · Since Jul 5
Widest split: T. Rowe Price, 37% on ChatGPT Search and 11% on Google AI Mode.
| Brand | ChatGPT Search | Google AI Mode | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tiger Global | 37% | 38% | |
| Coatue | 37% | 38% | |
| Altimeter Capital | 37% | 35% | |
| Dragoneer | 35% | 33% | |
| TCV | 26% | 33% | |
| Ares Management | 30% | 28% | |
| Blue Owl | 31% | 27% | |
| D1 Capital Partners | 37% | 19% | |
| Golub Capital | 30% | 26% | |
| Lone Pine Capital | 30% | 23% |
38% of citations point at the ranked brands’ own sites. startups.com, reuters.com, morningstar.com are the most-cited sites outside the ranked brands’ own domains.
Market map
Mentioned in · since Jul 5
Leading brands by topic
Google AI ModeOct 13, 2026
Crossover funds invest in both private late-stage startups and public equities, effectively bridging traditional venture capital and public market hedge funds.
The leading crossover investment firms include:
Would you like to explore how crossover fund strategies shifted following recent market corrections, or look into how they evaluate private valuations relative to public comparables?
ChatGPT SearchOct 13, 2026
Can you list the top crossover funds that invest in both public and private companies?
Can you list the top crossover funds that handle both public and private market investments?
ChatGPT SearchOct 13, 2026
ChatGPT SearchOct 7, 2026
The leading crossover investment firms are generally those that invest in high-growth private companies—often in late-stage venture or pre-IPO rounds—while also managing portfolios of publicly traded stocks. The strongest names to know are Coatue, Tiger Global, D1 Capital Partners, Dragoneer, Altimeter Capital, and TCV, with Fidelity, Wellington Management, and T. Rowe Price also important in the broader category.
Here is a practical shortlist, grouped by their investment approach rather than a strict performance ranking.
1. Coatue Management
(Top-tier crossover)
A technology-focused investor active in both public equities and private technology companies, spanning venture investments through growth-stage rounds. Particularly relevant for AI, software, internet businesses, and semiconductors.
Best known for: technology investing across public and private markets.
2. Tiger Global Management
One of the firms most closely associated with the modern crossover model. It combines public-market investing with private technology and internet-company investments, historically with a strong emphasis on growth.
Best known for: global technology, internet, and late-stage venture investing.
3. D1 Capital Partners
A multi-strategy investment firm with public-equity and private-investment activities. It can be a fit for companies seeking a sophisticated institutional investor across multiple stages of their development.
Best known for: public equities, growth investments, and private-company exposure.
4. Dragoneer Investment Group
A growth-oriented investor with a substantial focus on technology and technology-enabled businesses. It participates in large private funding rounds and also invests in public companies. Dragoneer raised a $4.3 billion venture fund in 2025, illustrating its continued private-market activity.
Best known for: scaled technology businesses and late-stage growth investing.
5. Altimeter Capital
A technology-focused investment manager active in public equities and private technology companies, including growth-stage businesses. It is particularly relevant for enterprise technology, cloud, and internet-related opportunities.
Best known for: technology growth investing across market stages.
6. TCV
A longstanding growth investor in technology and software businesses, with experience supporting companies through expansion and into the public markets. Its strategy is more growth-equity-oriented than that of a traditional hedge fund.
Best known for: enterprise software, fintech, and established growth companies.
This shortlist reflects recurring names in descriptions of crossover investing, not a verified ranking by assets under management or investment returns.
| Firm | What distinguishes it |
|---|---|
| Fidelity Investments | Large institutional investor with public-equity strategies and selective private-company investments. |
| Wellington Management | Traditional asset manager with public equities and private-market investing capabilities. |
| T. Rowe Price | Public-market manager known for participating in private growth rounds before companies IPO. |
| Lone Pine Capital |
Public stocks plus private investments, often with a technology or growth bias.
Coatue · Tiger Global · D1 Capital · Altimeter
Private growth rounds, later-stage ownership, and exposure to companies around their IPOs.
Dragoneer · TCV · Fidelity · T. Rowe Price
Established asset managers with the ability to allocate across listed and private securities.
Wellington Management · Lone Pine · Whale Rock
A few distinctions are worth keeping in mind:
For background, Morningstar's analysis of crossover funds discusses how public and private investing strategies overlap, while Startups.com's crossover investor overview identifies several of the major firms.
My starting shortlist: If you are researching the most recognizable dedicated crossover managers, start with Coatue, Tiger Global, D1 Capital, Dragoneer, and Altimeter. Add TCV if your focus is growth equity and technology companies approaching or already in the public markets.
If you're looking to raise a large, flexible debt facility instead of selling additional equity, I'd start with the biggest direct-lending and opportunistic private-credit platforms, then narrow the list based on your company's cash flow, growth profile, sector, and collateral.
The key distinction is that a conventional private-credit lender typically underwrites repayment capacity, while a growth-oriented or structured-credit investor may be willing to lend against future revenue, recurring contracts, intellectual property, or a specific financing opportunity. The latter can be more relevant when the goal is to avoid a dilutive equity round.
These are strong starting points for a large corporate financing mandate, based on scale, lending capabilities, and willingness to structure bespoke transactions. This is a shortlist, not a ranking of current offers or a guarantee of fit. The Federal Reserve's review of private debt managers identifies many of these firms among the major private-credit platforms.
1. Ares Management
(Top-tier starting point)
One of the largest private-credit platforms, with substantial direct-lending and specialty-finance capabilities. Worth approaching for large senior-secured facilities, acquisition financing, refinancing, and complex capital structures.
Best fit: established businesses with meaningful earnings or assets that can support a large debt commitment.
Website:
2. HPS Investment Partners
A major credit investor with broad financing capabilities, including large corporate loans and more complex, bespoke credit transactions.
Best fit: borrowers seeking a sizable facility, customized terms, or a financing solution that does not fit neatly into a standard bank loan.
Website:
3. Blue Owl Capital
A scaled direct lender offering first-lien, second-lien, unitranche, technology-focused, and opportunistic financing. Blue Owl says its platform can lead or anchor debt financings exceeding $1 billion.
Best fit: upper-middle-market businesses and larger companies looking for a flexible, potentially multi-tranche debt package.
Website:
4. Blackstone Credit & Insurance
A major alternative-credit platform with significant capacity for corporate lending and structured financing.
Best fit: large borrowers, sponsor-backed businesses, and companies with enough scale to attract institutional underwriting.
Website:
5. Sixth Street
Particularly relevant for bespoke financing. Its direct-lending platform states that it provides loans ranging from $50 million to more than $2.5 billion and handles growth capital, acquisition financing, and complex transactions.
Best fit: companies seeking a very large, tailored financing package rather than a standardized loan.
Website:
6. Apollo Global Management
A large credit platform with capabilities spanning direct lending, asset-backed finance, and complex capital solutions.
Best fit: large financing needs where collateral, asset value, contractual cash flows, or a more structured transaction can support the underwriting.
Website:
7. Oaktree Capital Management
A major credit investor with experience across corporate credit, special situations, and complex or stressed financing situations.
Best fit: businesses with unusual capital structures, refinancing needs, assets to underwrite, or financing requirements that conventional direct lenders may find difficult.
Website:
8. Goldman Sachs Alternatives
Its private-credit and alternative-investment businesses can be relevant for large, complex financings and bespoke capital solutions.
Best fit: larger, established businesses, especially where a sophisticated institutional financing structure is needed.
Website:
If your company is a growth-stage business rather than a mature, cash-flow-positive company, I would add a second group to the outreach list. These lenders may be more relevant if you need capital to extend runway, finance expansion, or reach a milestone without issuing new shares.
Hercules Capital
Specializes in senior-secured venture-growth loans to technology and life-sciences companies. A particularly relevant candidate for venture-backed businesses seeking substantial non-dilutive capital.
Trinity Capital
Provides venture debt, equipment financing, and other tailored growth-capital solutions. Its published venture-debt program advertises loans of up to $100 million, making it worth considering for a sizable growth financing.
Runway Growth Finance
A specialist growth lender worth evaluating for technology and other high-growth companies that may not fit traditional cash-flow lending criteria.
Best fit: growth-stage companies with a credible path to repayment, even if current profitability is limited.
Monroe Capital
A middle-market private-credit firm to consider for cash-flow and recurring-revenue financing, including situations where a borrower needs a customized debt structure.
The right structure matters as much as the lender. Here are four common ways to raise substantial capital without a conventional equity round.
| Structure | When it is most useful | Main trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Unitranche / senior-secured loan | Established company with predictable cash flow | Covenants, collateral and potentially restrictive debt capacity |
| Growth debt / venture debt | High-growth company seeking to extend runway or reach milestones | Higher pricing; some lenders require warrants |
| Recurring-revenue loan | SaaS, subscription or contract-based business | Revenue quality, retention and growth are scrutinized |
An important caveat: debt is not automatically non-dilutive in the economic sense. Warrants, payment-in-kind interest, original-issue discounts, and lender equity rights can add cost. Debt also creates fixed repayment obligations that an equity round does not.
If I were building an outreach list before knowing more about the company, I'd prioritize:
For context, these are different types of lenders, and the actual minimum facility size, leverage, pricing, and appetite for a non-sponsored borrower need to be confirmed directly. I would run a targeted process rather than send the same generic pitch to all of them.
Approximate answers are fine. These details materially change which lenders are realistic.
1. How much capital do you need?
Under $25 million
$25 million–$50 million
$50 million–$100 million
$100 million–$250 million
$250 million or more
2. What type of company is it?
Early-stage startup
Growth-stage, venture-backed
Established, profitable business
Private-equity-backed company
Asset-heavy or project-based business
3. Which sector?
Technology / SaaS
Healthcare / life sciences
Industrials / manufacturing
Consumer / services
Energy / infrastructure / real assets
Other
4. Current financial profile and ownership
Profitability
Cash-flow negative, high growth
Near breakeven or profitable
Strong EBITDA / free cash flow
Primarily asset-backed or contract-backed
Ownership
Founder-owned or venture-backed; no PE sponsor
Private-equity-sponsored
Public company
Other
[Identify the best-fit lenders]
With those details, I can distinguish the firms most likely to underwrite the transaction from those that are merely large private-credit managers—and focus on lenders that can realistically replace a meaningful equity raise with debt.
Google AI ModeOct 13, 2026
Private credit has grown into a multi-trillion-dollar asset class , frequently acting as a direct, non-dilutive alternative to late-stage venture rounds or equity growth capital. The market is dominated by massive global alternative asset managers capable of writing check sizes ranging from tens of millions to over $1 billion for single transactions.[](https://ctacquisitions.com/private-credit-firms-list/)[[2](https://altss.com/rankings/largest-private-credit-managers)](https://altss.com/rankings/largest-private-credit-managers)
The leading private credit funds and platforms known for large, flexible, and customized financing solutions include:
If you'd like to narrow this down, tell me:
Google AI ModeOct 4, 2026
When seeking substantial, adaptable financing—such as unitranche debt, delayed-draw term loans, mezzanine financing, or asset-based lending—to bypass equity dilution, major institutional private credit platforms dominate the market.[](https://ctacquisitions.com/private-credit-firms-list/)
The top global providers known for deploying large-scale, customized non-bank financing solutions include:
ChatGPT SearchOct 4, 2026
I'm looking for major private credit providers that offer flexible, large-scale debt financing as an alternative to raising equity. Can you list the top firms?
Yes. The institutional proxy-voting market has a few major categories: end-to-end voting platforms, proxy advisers/research providers, and specialized stewardship/voting agencies.
| Provider | Main offering | Particularly useful for |
|---|---|---|
| ISS STOXX | End-to-end voting, governance research, recommendations, vote execution and reporting | Large global asset managers and owners wanting research + execution in one workflow |
| Glass Lewis | Viewpoint voting platform, proxy research/recommendations, N-PX reporting, pass-through voting | Institutions wanting independent research plus voting infrastructure |
| Broadridge Financial Solutions | ProxyEdge: ballot management, vote execution, policy rules, reconciliation, analytics, reporting and pass-through voting | Institutions prioritizing operational scale and integrated vote processing |
| Minerva Analytics | Highly customizable voting policies, execution, split voting, governance/ESG research and stewardship analytics | Asset owners/managers wanting their own voting policies rather than a benchmark recommendation |
| Sodali & Co | More focused on proxy solicitation, shareholder engagement and meeting support | Activist/contested situations and shareholder engagement rather than routine institutional vote administration |
ISS STOXX is probably the closest thing to a full-stack institutional proxy-voting provider. Its platform combines governance research and recommendations with actual vote execution and disclosure; ISS says it covers more than 100 capital markets and cast 14.1 million ballots for clients in the prior year.
Glass Lewis is the other major proxy-adviser ecosystem. Its Viewpoint platform handles voting, research and reporting, while its pass-through offering lets asset managers give underlying investors choices among voting policies. It explicitly integrates with providers such as Broadridge, Proxymity and Tumelo for execution.
Broadridge ProxyEdge is particularly strong on the plumbing: receiving ballots, establishing voting rules, executing and reconciling votes, monitoring meetings, and producing regulatory reports. It can also incorporate third-party research and recommendations.
Minerva stands out if an institution wants a highly customized stewardship philosophy. It advertises 15,000+ configurable policy variables, custom voting policies, split voting, resolution-level rationales and coverage across more than 70 markets.
There are really two decisions an institutional investor can make:
“Who helps us decide how to vote?”
→ ISS STOXX, Glass Lewis, Minerva and other governance-research providers.
“Who actually gets the vote submitted, reconciled and reported?”
→ Broadridge, ISS STOXX, Glass Lewis/Viewpoint, Minerva and specialized voting infrastructure providers.
Many large institutions use multiple providers rather than choosing one—for example, obtaining research/recommendations from ISS or Glass Lewis while using an execution/processing platform such as Broadridge.
One particularly important trend is pass-through voting: asset managers are increasingly allowing their underlying investors to express voting preferences. Both Broadridge and Glass Lewis now offer infrastructure for this, while Vanguard's 2026 expansion of Investor Choice illustrates how significant the model has become.
If you're evaluating these vendors commercially, I can also give you a detailed competitive landscape of ~15 proxy-voting providers, including pricing model, geographic coverage, research vs. execution, APIs/integrations, target customer, and estimated market positioning.
Google AI ModeSep 30, 2026
Institutional investors—such as pension funds, mutual funds, and asset managers—rely on specialized proxy advisory, vote execution, and governance platforms to manage, automate, and report on global shareholder voting obligations.[](https://www.broadridge.com/capability/governance-and-regulatory-compliance/proxy-services/institutional-proxy-voting)
The primary service providers in this space include:
What are some options for institutional investors looking for proxy voting management services?
ChatGPT SearchOct 15, 2026
Institutional investors have several options for managing shareholder proxy voting, ranging from end-to-end voting platforms to governance research and specialized pass-through voting solutions. The right choice depends on whether you need to execute votes across global portfolios, automate voting policies, integrate with custodians, manage regulatory reporting, or give fund clients more control over voting decisions.
(Broad end-to-end coverage)
An institutional proxy voting platform for asset managers, hedge funds and other investment firms. Supports electronic voting, account and ballot management, vote tracking, reconciliation, reporting, custom voting rules and integrations with research providers. Also supports pass-through voting and regulatory reporting workflows.
Best for: Institutions seeking a centralized operational platform across multiple custodians, accounts and markets.
Website:
Google AI ModeOct 15, 2026
| Fundamental, growth-oriented public-equity investing with private-market exposure. |
| Whale Rock Capital | Technology-focused public-equity investor that has also participated in private growth investments. |
| Lead Edge Capital | Growth-equity firm that combines private investments with a more limited public-equity allocation. |
| Asset-backed / structured credit | Company with valuable receivables, equipment, contractual cash flows or other assets | Borrowing base, collateral controls and potentially complex documentation |
If you share details about your industry, estimated financing size , and preferred debt structure (e.g., senior secured vs. asset-backed), I can help narrow down which specific firm fits your operational profile best.
Yes. If your objective is to avoid another equity raise and instead secure a large, flexible debt/private-capital solution, I’d prioritize firms that can underwrite substantial transactions, hold a meaningful portion themselves, and structure beyond a plain-vanilla term loan.
| Provider | Best fit | Why it stands out |
|---|---|---|
| Ares Management | Large middle-market / large-cap companies | One of the deepest direct-lending platforms; offers first lien, unitranche, second lien, subordinated debt and preferred/non-control equity. Ares says its U.S. direct-lending platform covers companies ranging from ~$10M to >$500M EBITDA. |
| Apollo Global Management | Very large / complex financings | Particularly strong when you need a bespoke, multi-billion-dollar or investment-grade-adjacent solution. Apollo explicitly markets long-term, flexible capital for complex financing needs and combines direct lending with asset-backed and hybrid solutions. |
| Blackstone | Large companies, sponsor-backed deals | One of the world's largest direct lenders, with senior direct lending plus broader private corporate credit, asset-based and structured-credit capabilities. Its scale is particularly useful for complex financings. |
| HPS Investment Partners | Highly customized / complicated capital structures | Excellent option when you need flexibility across the capital stack. HPS offers senior secured, junior capital, specialty direct lending and special situations, with ~$131B in corporate-focused private credit AUM and $227B deployed across 1,100+ investments. |
| Blue Owl Capital | Upper-middle-market growth, acquisitions, refinancing | Very strong direct lender with the ability to commit to full capital structures. Blue Owl says it can lead/anchor financings exceeding $1B and offers first-lien, second-lien and unitranche structures. |
| KKR | Large sponsor-backed / asset-backed transactions | Combines direct lending with asset-based finance, giving it flexibility when traditional cash-flow leverage isn't sufficient. Its private-credit strategy emphasizes control over transaction structure and terms. |
| Golub Capital | Middle-market sponsor-backed companies | Particularly strong for dependable acquisition, refinancing and growth financing. Golub has >$90B of capital under management and can hold direct-lending positions up to $1B and arrange facilities up to $2B. |
| Sixth Street | Growth companies / bespoke financing | Attractive where you need debt that doesn't fit a standard direct-loan box. Sixth Street describes its direct-lending offering as custom debt/debt-like financing with flexible structures and rapid, fully committed execution. |
If you need the largest possible check:
Apollo, Blackstone, Ares, HPS, KKR
If you want maximum structural flexibility:
HPS, Ares, Apollo, Sixth Street
If you're a PE-backed upper-middle-market company:
Blue Owl, Ares, Golub, HPS
If you're trying to finance growth without substantial dilution:
Blue Owl, Sixth Street, Apollo, Ares
If the business has significant hard assets / receivables / equipment:
Apollo, Ares, KKR, Blue Owl — their asset-based capabilities can sometimes support substantially more capital than a pure EBITDA-based loan. Apollo, for example, has dedicated platforms covering aviation, equipment, trade finance, warehouse facilities and other asset-backed lending.
If by "substantial, adaptable financing" you mean $100M–$1B+ of capital while minimizing dilution, I wouldn't approach these firms as though you're simply shopping for a conventional leveraged loan. The interesting structures can include:
The advantage of private credit is precisely that the lender can negotiate these terms directly rather than forcing the company into a standardized syndicated-market structure. Apollo, for example, explicitly highlights bespoke structures such as tailored amortization and delayed-draw facilities.
If you tell me your approximate EBITDA/revenue, desired financing amount (e.g. $50M, $250M, $1B+), industry, and whether you're PE-backed, I can narrow this to the 5–7 firms most likely to actually finance you and rank them by likely check size, leverage capacity, flexibility, and dilution.
If you'd like, let me know:
Combines proxy voting workflows with governance research, voting policies, reporting and vote disclosure. Additional services include SEC Form N-PX reporting, share recalls and pass-through voting programs. Its customizable policies can support different regional, ESG and institutional mandates.
Best for: Investors who want voting operations closely integrated with governance research and stewardship.
Website:
ISS is a major provider of proxy research, vote recommendations, governance data and voting-policy services. Its solutions are relevant to investors that want independent analysis and policy-driven decisions incorporated into their voting process. Evaluate the specific ISS voting and execution offering separately from its research products.
Best for: Institutions that prioritize governance research, policy customization and research-supported voting decisions.
Website:
A digital proxy voting platform designed to connect issuers, custodians, intermediaries and investors. It provides real-time meeting information, electronic vote submission and confirmation, and cross-border voting workflows. The provider reports coverage across more than 105 markets.
Best for: Global investors prioritizing custody-chain connectivity, timely ballot information and vote confirmation.
Website:
Specializes in pass-through voting for pooled funds and ETFs. It supports investor identification, proportional vote allocation, voting-policy selection, individual proposal overrides and reporting. Its model allows institutions to retain existing proxy advisers while adding more flexible voting options for clients.
Best for: Asset managers and pension-related investors who need to offer voting choice to underlying fund investors.
Website:
| Platform | Primary strength | Particularly suitable for |
|---|---|---|
| Broadridge ProxyEdge | Voting operations, reconciliation and reporting | Multi-custodian institutional portfolios |
| Glass Lewis Viewpoint | Research, voting policies and disclosure | Stewardship-focused investment teams |
| ISS ProxyExchange | Research-integrated vote execution | Institutions using ISS research and recommendations |
| Proxymity Vote Connect | Digital connectivity and global vote processing | Cross-border investors |
| Tumelo ProxySphere | Pass-through and client-directed voting | Pooled funds, ETFs and pension investors |
These are complementary rather than perfectly interchangeable products. For example, a firm might use ISS or Glass Lewis for voting research and a separate platform for vote execution. Availability of specific integrations, market coverage and features will depend on the provider and service agreement.
I would evaluate prospective vendors against six criteria:
Pricing and detailed implementation requirements generally need to be confirmed directly with vendors.
My initial shortlist: For conventional institutional proxy operations, start with Broadridge ProxyEdge and ISS ProxyExchange. Add Glass Lewis Viewpoint if integrated governance research and policy management are priorities, Proxymity if global voting connectivity is central, and Tumelo if pass-through voting is a core requirement.
One question would help me narrow this down: Are you evaluating platforms for an asset manager or hedge fund voting its own portfolio holdings, or for a fund manager that wants to let its underlying investors direct how the fund votes? Those are different use cases, and the best shortlist changes accordingly.
Several prominent enterprise platforms and digital voting infrastructures are available for institutional investors to manage, automate, and report on shareholder proxy voting. [](https://www.iss-stoxx.com/stewardship/proxy-voting-solutions/)[[2](https://www.broadridge.com/capability/governance-and-regulatory-compliance/proxy-services/institutional-proxy-voting)](https://www.broadridge.com/capability/governance-and-regulatory-compliance/proxy-services/institutional-proxy-voting)
Institutional proxy management bridges custody chains, voting execution, customized policy applications, and compliance filings (such as Form N-PX). The leading choices utilized across global markets include:[](https://www.broadridge.com/capability/governance-and-regulatory-compliance/proxy-services/institutional-proxy-voting)[[2](https://www.broadridge.com/capability/governance-and-regulatory-compliance/proxy-services/institutional-proxy-voting)](https://www.proxymity.io/views/making-every-proxy-vote-count/)[[3](https://www.proxymity.io/views/making-every-proxy-vote-count)](https://www.iss-stoxx.com/stewardship/proxy-voting-solutions/)
