C&C 26 vs IW 26
How do the C&C 26 and IW 26 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 26 
IW 26 | C&C 26 | IW 26 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 25.6 ft7.80 m | 25.6 ft7.80 m |
| Waterline length | 23.6 ft7.19 m | 19.5 ft5.95 m |
| Beam | 10.4 ft3.18 m | 8.4 ft2.55 m |
| Draft | 4.6 ft1.40 m | 4.6 ft1.40 m |
| Displacement | 5,400 lb2,449 kg | 4,189 lb1,900 kg |
| Ballast | 2,040 lb925 kg | 1,984 lb900 kg |
| Sail area | 331 ft²30.8 m² | 339 ft²31.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.21 | 20.87 |
| Displacement / Length | 184 | 251 |
| Comfort ratio | 15.2 | 17.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.38 | 2.08 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 5.9 |
| Average used price | — | €4,500 |
C&C 26 vs IW 26: the short version
- The C&C 26 and IW 26 are close in length (25.6 ft7.80 m vs 25.6 ft7.80 m ).
- The C&C 26 is heavier, displacing about 29% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the IW 26 carries the more powerful rig (20.9 vs 17.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The IW 26 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the IW 26 rates better for offshore work (2.08 vs 2.38).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.