Research guide

Largest DST Sponsors (2026): What Size Actually Measures

By Sequoia ResearchPublished Read as Markdown

What Is This Article About?

This article compares size figures published by selected DST sponsors and explains what each figure measures. It uses sources available in October 2026, with the original dates and limits kept beside the numbers. It shows why assets, equity raised, and program counts can produce different lists. It also explains how to use size in sponsor research without treating it as a rating of safety or investment quality.

Table of Contents

There Is More Than One Way to Be a Large DST Sponsor

A search for the largest DST sponsors can lead to several reasonable lists. One might rank recent equity sales. Another might rank assets still managed. A third might count every program launched since the firm began. Each list answers a different question.

The problem begins when the labels disappear. A total for a whole real estate group can be placed beside the DST assets of one business unit. A lifetime fundraising figure can be placed beside a single year's sales. The numbers may be correctly copied while the comparison is still wrong.

Start by stating what you want to learn. Recent fundraising can help describe the pace at which a platform adds investor capital. Current assets can help describe the scale of its ongoing work. A count of completed programs can point you toward a history that deserves review. None is a substitute for the others.

Size also has a date. A figure measured at the end of 2025 is not a current October 2026 figure just because it appears on a live page. The old date may still be useful if it is the latest available for that measure. It should remain visible.

This article uses a bounded sample to show these issues in real sources. It does not claim to identify the largest sponsor in the entire market. A market-wide rank would require a defined universe, matched measures, a common date, and a consistent method for handling missing data.

The first task is therefore to name the yardstick. “Largest by DST equity sold during calendar 2025” is a clear question. “Largest real estate company” is much broader. A reader should not have to guess which question a table answers.

The 2026 Public-Source Sample and Its Limits

We reviewed public materials from Capital Square, ExchangeRight, and Inland on October 16, 2026. The sample was selected because these sponsor platforms publish several size measures that can be inspected. Their inclusion is not a claim that they are the three largest firms or the best investments.

The review covers company pages, a current linked track-record document, and a portfolio-overview landing page. We did not obtain a complete industry sales database, audit the firms, or reconcile every property and offering to financial statements. Published company figures remain attributed company figures.

We kept the original measure names where they affect meaning. A phrase such as “real estate transacted” was not renamed “assets under management.” A count of offerings or share classes was not silently turned into a count of unique DSTs. That preserves the limits of the source.

We also kept different legal scopes separate. A platform may include DSTs, a REIT, development funds, and other programs. Its group-wide size may be relevant to the business, but it does not reveal the size of the DST business by itself.

Some fields remain unranked. That is deliberate. A blank or unresolved field means the comparable figure was not established from the reviewed records. It is not zero, and it is not evidence that the company has no activity in that category.

The comparison below is a source-based size map. It shows what can be said from the public materials and what still needs a matching definition. A final ranking should wait until those differences are resolved.

Selected Sponsor Size Figures Available in 2026

The figures in this table use each company's stated labels. The table is arranged by company name, not by rank. Plus signs and rounded figures are preserved.

Sponsor platform Assets or transaction measure Program or capital measure Date and scope limits
Capital Square $7 billion-plus AUM in the statistics panel; $9 billion-plus real estate transacted 145-plus sponsored investment offerings Live about page has no single as-of date for the panel; broader platform includes more than DSTs
ExchangeRight $7.8 billion-plus AUM on home page; $9.1 billion syndicated AUM in track-record table 101 active offerings/share classes and 34 full-cycle offerings in that table September 30, 2026; syndicated AUM explicitly includes full-cycle offerings
Inland $16 billion AUM; $31 billion capital raised 851 sponsored programs; 155 completed Section 1031 exchange programs December 31, 2025; group figures span Inland entities, with most measures cumulative since inception

Capital Square's narrative also says AUM exceeds $6 billion. That lower bound does not logically conflict with a figure above $7 billion, but the page does not explain the different reference points. We retained the statistics-panel label and did not infer a precise balance or growth rate. See Capital Square's about page.

ExchangeRight's cumulative asset table includes completed offerings, while its home page states AUM. The linked PDF is dated August 31, 2026; we used the newer September web figures. The web table's active-category rows add to 100, but its total says 101. We preserve that reported total and flag the difference for confirmation. See ExchangeRight's home page, track-record table, and linked track-record PDF.

Inland states that its figures span entities and are cumulative except for AUM. Its definition of a completed program includes several possible events, not just an asset sale. See Inland's company page and metric notes.

The largest displayed AUM headline in this sample belongs to Inland. That observation is not a DST-only rank: dates, product scope, entity scope, and methods are not fully matched. The numbers support a comparison of published scale claims. They do not support a precise market-share table.

Assets Under Management: Read the Definition First

Assets under management, often shortened to AUM, sounds like a single measure. In a sponsor comparison, the label is only a starting point. Ask which assets, which values, and which ownership interests the number includes.

A gross property value differs from investor equity. In a simplified example, a property worth $100 million with $60 million of debt has $40 million left before other liabilities and costs. Reporting $100 million of property value does not mean investors have $100 million of net equity.

Two platforms can have equal gross assets and different debt loads. One might manage $1 billion of property with $400 million of debt. Another might manage the same gross value with $650 million of debt. The simple residuals are $600 million and $350 million before other items. The gross size alone hides that difference.

The valuation basis matters too. A number may use purchase cost, a current estimate, or another defined basis. Ask when values were updated and whether the same basis applies across the portfolio. A market change can affect estimated values even if no properties are bought or sold.

Ownership scope also matters. If a program owns half of a property through a joint venture, does the stated total include the full property or only the program's share? Either can describe something useful if clearly labeled. Mixing the two methods can distort a comparison.

Current Assets Versus Cumulative Activity

Current AUM is a point-in-time measure. Cumulative activity covers events over a period. A property bought and later sold may remain in a lifetime transaction total even though it no longer creates a management duty for the platform.

Suppose a fictional firm buys a property for $50 million and later sells it for $60 million. A measure that adds purchases and sales could show $110 million of activity. Current assets from that property would be zero after the sale. Neither number should be labeled as the other.

Internal transfers add another question. If a property moves from a DST to an affiliated vehicle, ask how each total treats it. A current group total should explain how overlap is handled. A cumulative deal-volume total may count more than one event involving the same property.

The right response is to request a definition and a reconciliation. Do not assume double counting merely because a cumulative figure exceeds current AUM. The difference may be fully explained by the purpose of the measure.

Equity Raised: Measure the Period and the Product

Equity raised measures investor capital brought into a defined set of programs. It differs from the property value that capital may help buy. Debt can fund part of a purchase, while fees and reserves can use part of the equity.

The first question is the time period. Lifetime equity shows accumulated fundraising activity. Annual equity shows a recent flow. Comparing one firm's lifetime total with another firm's most recent year does not identify a fundraising leader.

The second question is the product. A company may raise money for DSTs, REIT shares, development funds, or other investments. Ask for the DST-only amount if the table is meant to compare DST fundraising. Keep other products in separate columns.

The third question is whether the number measures money committed, money accepted, or a target still being raised. Those stages are not the same. A proposed $100 million offering is not evidence that $100 million has been sold.

The SEC's Form D makes this distinction visible. Item 13 separates total offering amount from total amount sold and remaining amount. A filing can help check a particular issuer's reported figures, but it is not a ready-made sponsor league table. See the SEC's Form D and instructions.

Avoid Adding the Same Capital Twice

A filing and its amendment should not automatically be added together. They can describe updates to the same offering. A careful dataset identifies the issuer, the offering, the filing date, and the relationship between records before totaling amounts.

Reinvestment creates another distinction. If an investor receives proceeds from one program and puts them into another, the new program may count a new capital raise. That can be a valid measure of gross fundraising. It does not necessarily represent new money entering the sponsor's overall platform from outside investors.

Ask whether the reported total is gross subscriptions, net flows, or another measure. Net flows need a stated treatment of withdrawals and returned capital. Avoid choosing a label simply because it makes the total sound larger or smaller.

For the real-company sample above, the reviewed sources do not establish matched DST-only equity raised for all three firms over one common period. We therefore leave that ranking unresolved. Group capital raised, asset value, and transaction volume cannot fill the missing fields.

Program Counts: What Is Being Counted?

A program count needs a unit. Is the firm counting legal issuers, offerings, properties, portfolios, or share classes? Does one program with several classes count once or several times? These questions can change the apparent size of a platform.

A single DST may own many properties. Another may own one large property. Counting programs alone does not show the number of assets, investor capital, or operating burden. It describes the number of units under the chosen counting rule.

Status matters as much as the unit. Separate launched programs, active programs, fully subscribed programs, and completed programs. “Active” can mean still operating, not open for new investment. A fully subscribed program may remain active for years.

The public sample shows why the wording matters. One table labels its active count as offerings or share classes. That wording should travel with the count. Adding it to a count of completed offerings does not automatically produce a total of unique DST programs.

Completed Does Not Always Mean the Same Event

A sponsor's completion rule may include an asset sale, a merger, a listing, or the end of a management role. Read that rule before comparing counts. A completed program count is not automatically a count of all-cash investor exits.

For example, a fictional program could transfer its property to another vehicle and give investors units in that vehicle. An event has occurred, but some investors may still hold an illiquid interest. The completion label alone does not describe their access to cash or their final outcome.

A separate Inland portfolio-overview page describes coverage of 334 programs offered through December 31, 2025. That is a different published population from the broader group total in the table. We did not treat the smaller population as a contradiction or assume it contained only DSTs. See Inland's private-investments portfolio-overview page.

Ask for a list behind the count. At a minimum, it should identify each program, launch date, current status, property type, and completion event if one occurred. That list lets a reviewer check whether the summary follows a consistent rule.

Property Counts and Investor Counts Need Their Own Rules

A large property count can describe a broad footprint, but it does not measure value by itself. A small retail building and a large apartment community each count as one property under a simple rule. Their values and management needs may differ greatly.

The counting boundary can also be unclear. A portfolio might include several parcels at one site, several buildings under one lease, or several sites in one legal entity. Ask how the sponsor turns those facts into a property count.

For a fictional example, Firm A has 100 properties with an average value of $5 million. Firm B has 20 properties with an average value of $40 million. A leads by property count, 100 to 20. B leads by total property value, $800 million to $500 million.

The example does not show that either business is better. It shows that the chosen unit changes the answer. A count can help describe how work is spread across sites. Dollar value can help describe financial scale. Both still need the underlying mix.

Investor counts require similar care. An account is not always a unique person or household. One investor may hold several accounts, and one account may have more than one owner. A count of investments is another unit again.

Do not use a large investor count as proof that a product is suitable or safe. It can describe reach, if the method is clear. It does not establish the financial circumstances of those investors or the quality of their results.

For service analysis, ask how the platform supports the accounts it serves. The useful question is whether staffing, systems, and communication processes fit the workload. The raw count cannot answer that without a denominator and a description of the work.

How the Same Sponsors Can Lead Different Lists

The following example uses three fictional sponsors. The numbers are invented to show how rankings change when the measure changes. They do not represent Capital Square, ExchangeRight, Inland, or any other actual company. All assets in this example belong to the active DST programs shown.

Fictional sponsor Current gross assets DST equity raised this year Active DST programs
Alder $4.0 billion $200 million 20
Birch $2.5 billion $500 million 40
Cedar $3.0 billion $300 million 15

Alder leads by current gross assets. Birch leads by the year's DST equity raised and active program count. Cedar is in the middle by gross assets and annual equity, but has the fewest active programs. No single ordering captures all three facts.

Even the two fields led by Birch have different meanings. Fundraising is a flow during the year. Active programs are a count at a date. A growing program count could reflect more launches, fewer exits, or both. The table needs more history to explain the change.

The average gross assets per active program are $200 million for Alder, $62.5 million for Birch, and $200 million for Cedar. These averages describe scale per program under the example's assumptions. They say nothing about the spread around the average.

If one program holds most of a firm's assets, the average can hide that concentration. A reviewer should ask for the largest program's share and the range of program sizes. Median size may provide another useful view, but only if the underlying list is available.

This is the central lesson for real rankings. The answer changes because the question changes. A clear table should state the question before showing the order, preserve the original unit, and avoid presenting the lead in one field as overall superiority.

Compare Current Scale With Growth and Workload

A single size figure tells you little about the pace of change. A firm with a stable portfolio faces a different workload from one adding programs quickly. Both may be able to manage the work well, but the evidence needed is different.

Ask for a simple bridge between two dates. Beginning assets plus additions, less dispositions, plus or minus value changes and other adjustments should explain the ending figure under the firm's method. Transfers and changes in reporting scope should be visible.

In a fictional bridge, a platform starts with $2.0 billion of assets. It adds $600 million, sells $300 million, and records a $100 million decline in the remaining values. Ending assets are $2.2 billion. The 10% net increase hides much more activity than the ending balance alone suggests.

Fundraising growth also needs context. A rising total may reflect more offerings, larger offerings, a different product mix, or money moved from another affiliated vehicle. Ask which factor drove the change before describing it as broader investor demand.

Staffing should be matched to the actual tasks. Total employees can include sales, property staff, development teams, and support roles. A large headcount does not tell you how many people review DST financial reports or respond to investor questions.

For a fictional workload check, 30 programs served by six relevant staff members gives five programs per person. If programs rise to 50 and the team grows to eight, the ratio becomes 6.25. That is a 25% increase. It is a prompt for questions, not proof that service has worsened.

The work per program may vary. A new acquisition, a major lease issue, or a planned exit can require more time than a stable asset. Ask how the sponsor handles peak periods, specialist needs, and staff departures. Ratios are useful only when they lead to a better understanding of the work.

What Sponsor Size Can Help You Investigate

Scale can point toward useful areas of review. A broad platform may have dedicated teams, more operating data, or access to several service providers. Those are possible business features to verify, not automatic benefits awarded by a large number.

Ask for the teams relevant to the proposed investment. Who handles property decisions, debt matters, investor reports, and tax documents? How long have those people worked with this property type? Which functions are done by affiliates or outside firms?

A longer program history can create a larger set of results to study. That is helpful if the records are complete and comparable. Request the weaker results and still-active programs as well as the completed successes. A large sample can still mislead if important cases are left out.

Scale may also change concentration. A large firm can remain concentrated in one asset type, region, or tenant group. A smaller platform can own properties across several markets. Review exposure directly instead of inferring it from the asset total.

Financial support deserves its own evidence. Assets managed for investors are not necessarily cash available to the sponsor. The sponsor may earn fees from those assets while owning only a small interest in them. Do not treat AUM as a balance available to cover a troubled property.

If a sponsor describes support for a program, ask which entity is responsible, what legal obligation exists, and what resources that entity has. A group's size does not, by itself, create a guarantee. The relevant agreement and financial records must support the claim.

The useful role of size is to shape the next question. It can suggest where resources or pressures may exist. The answer comes from the business records, people, and agreements behind the headline.

What Size Cannot Tell You About a DST Investment

A large sponsor can offer a property at a price that leaves little room for error. A smaller sponsor can also face serious limits. Neither observation can be resolved by size alone. The property, deal structure, and investor's needs still matter.

AUM does not show expected income. Equity raised does not show a property's value. Program count does not show net investor returns. Treat each as a descriptive measure and keep performance analysis in a separate part of the review.

Size does not remove liquidity risk. The SEC warns that private placements may be hard to resell and may involve a loss of the entire investment. A large platform name does not create a public trading market for the interest you buy. See the SEC private placement investor bulletin, updated September 21, 2026.

Nor does a Form D filing provide an SEC quality rating. The same bulletin explains that filing the notice does not mean the SEC approved the offering. A sponsor-size table built from filings should not imply otherwise.

Due diligence remains specific to the issuer and offering. FINRA's guidance describes investigation of management, assets, business claims, intended use of proceeds, and red flags. Prior experience with an issuer does not settle every question about a new placement. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08.

An investment decision needs a separate review of price, leases, debt, fees, reserves, conflicts, and exit terms. The sponsor's scale is one part of the business context. It should not become a shortcut around the facts that drive the investor's outcome.

Build a Size Comparison You Can Check

Begin with a defined universe. State whether the comparison covers a few named firms, all firms in a supplied database, or another clear group. Do not call a small sample the market. Explain how firms entered the list.

Choose one primary measure for each table. For example, one table could compare calendar-year DST equity sold. Another could compare current DST-only gross assets at year-end. Keeping them separate prevents a large lifetime figure from dominating an unrelated current question.

For every number, record the source, date, unit, product scope, entity scope, and method. Keep the original label beside any normalized label you create. If you convert millions to billions, preserve the source number too so another reader can check the conversion.

Use a status field for the evidence. Suitable labels include reported, reconciled to supporting records, and unresolved. These describe the review work. They should not be presented as official ratings or assurances about the sponsor.

Check the arithmetic without inventing precision. A figure stated as “over $7 billion” is not exactly $7.0 billion. A ratio based on that rounded lower bound is not an exact market share. If the needed precision is absent, report the limit instead of adding decimal places.

Finally, test whether the table answers its stated question. If two rows use different dates or one includes non-DST assets, either obtain the missing detail or keep the rows clearly unranked. A comparison can be useful even when the evidence does not support an ordered list.

Questions to Send to a Sponsor

A focused request can resolve many of the gaps in public size figures. Name the measure and the date you want, rather than asking the firm to send its latest marketing materials.

Ask for current DST-only assets and the valuation method used. Request the treatment of debt, joint ventures, completed offerings, and transfers to affiliated vehicles. Ask which legal entities are included and whether the total has been reconciled to a supporting schedule.

For fundraising, request the amount sold during the same calendar period used for other firms. Ask whether the figure includes reinvested proceeds, non-DST products, commitments not yet funded, or sales through more than one entity. Keep the response with the source table.

For programs, request the counting rule and a list showing status. Ask how multiple share classes, portfolio changes, mergers, and exits are treated. If the firm uses a completion definition, retain it beside the number.

A clear response may confirm the published figure, narrow its scope, or replace it with a more useful measure. Update the table and record why it changed. The goal is a comparison another person can follow from claim to source without guessing what the number means.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is the largest DST sponsor in 2026?

This bounded review does not establish a market-wide winner. Inland has the largest displayed AUM headline among the three sampled platforms, but the figures have different dates and scopes. A DST-only ranking needs matched data across a defined universe.

Is AUM the same as equity raised?

No. AUM describes assets under a stated method and date. Equity raised describes investor capital brought into programs over a period. Debt, fees, sales, value changes, and product scope can make the totals differ greatly.

Does the sponsor with the most programs have the most assets?

Not necessarily. Programs vary in size and may hold one property or many. Some published counts also include share classes. Compare the unit and status before treating program counts as a measure of financial scale.

Can I use Form D to rank DST sponsors?

Form D can help check an issuer's reported offering and sales amounts. A sponsor ranking needs more work, including entity mapping, amendments, dates, product types, and duplicate records. A filing is not SEC approval or a performance rating.

Are completed programs the same as cash exits?

Not always. A sponsor's completion rule can include several events, and investors may receive interests in another vehicle. Read the definition and the actual event before drawing a conclusion about cash received or investment results.

Does a bigger sponsor have more money to support a troubled DST?

AUM does not answer that question. Investor assets may be separate from sponsor resources. Review the responsible entity, any legal support obligation, and its financial capacity. Do not infer a guarantee from group size.

How should I handle a missing figure in a ranking?

Mark it as not established and explain what is missing. Do not treat it as zero or substitute a different measure. If the gap affects comparability, leave the firms unranked until the needed evidence is available.

About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This educational library helps readers check source definitions, compare evidence, and ask better questions about sponsors and investments.

Sources