Allegra 24 vs Shark 24
How do the Allegra 24 and Shark 24 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Allegra 24 
Shark 24 | Allegra 24 | Shark 24 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 23.9 ft7.29 m | 24.0 ft7.31 m |
| Waterline length | 20.8 ft6.35 m | 20.0 ft6.10 m |
| Beam | 8.0 ft2.44 m | 6.9 ft2.10 m |
| Draft | 3.5 ft1.07 m | 3.0 ft0.91 m |
| Displacement | 6,200 lb2,812 kg | 2,100 lb953 kg |
| Ballast | 2,200 lb998 kg | 675 lb306 kg |
| Sail area | 359 ft²33.4 m² | 190 ft²17.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.02 | 18.54 |
| Displacement / Length | 306 | 117 |
| Comfort ratio | 27.6 | 11.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.74 | 2.15 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.1 | 6.0 |
| Average used price | — | €2,980 |
Allegra 24 vs Shark 24: the short version
- The Allegra 24 and Shark 24 are close in length (23.9 ft7.29 m vs 24.0 ft7.31 m ).
- The Allegra 24 is heavier, displacing about 195% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Shark 24 carries the more powerful rig (18.5 vs 17.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Allegra 24 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Allegra 24 rates better for offshore work (1.74 vs 2.15).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.