Allegro 33 vs Marlow-Hunter 31
How do the Allegro 33 and Marlow-Hunter 31 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Allegro 33 | Allegro 33 | Marlow-Hunter 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.2 ft9.81 m | 32.4 ft9.86 m |
| Waterline length | 28.9 ft8.82 m | 29.7 ft9.04 m |
| Beam | 10.9 ft3.33 m | 11.8 ft3.61 m |
| Draft | 4.9 ft1.50 m | 5.4 ft1.65 m |
| Displacement | 13,669 lb6,200 kg | 11,854 lb5,377 kg |
| Ballast | 6,173 lb2,800 kg | 3,380 lb1,533 kg |
| Sail area | 527 ft²49.0 m² | 581 ft²54.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.75 | 17.88 |
| Displacement / Length | 252 | 203 |
| Comfort ratio | 29.2 | 22.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.83 | 2.08 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 7.3 |
| Average used price | €29,000 | — |
Allegro 33 vs Marlow-Hunter 31: the short version
- The Allegro 33 and Marlow-Hunter 31 are close in length (32.2 ft9.81 m vs 32.4 ft9.86 m ).
- The Allegro 33 is heavier, displacing about 15% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marlow-Hunter 31 carries the more powerful rig (17.9 vs 14.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Allegro 33 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Allegro 33 rates better for offshore work (1.83 vs 2.08).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.