Comfort 32 vs Maxi 95
How do the Comfort 32 and Maxi 95 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Comfort 32 | Comfort 32 | Maxi 95 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.2 ft9.50 m | 31.2 ft9.50 m |
| Waterline length | 24.6 ft7.50 m | 25.6 ft7.80 m |
| Beam | 10.7 ft3.27 m | 10.4 ft3.16 m |
| Draft | 5.6 ft1.70 m | 5.1 ft1.55 m |
| Displacement | 9,921 lb4,500 kg | 11,023 lb5,000 kg |
| Ballast | 3,968 lb1,800 kg | 3,527 lb1,600 kg |
| Sail area | 603 ft²56.0 m² | 506 ft²47.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 20.90 | 16.35 |
| Displacement / Length | 297 | 294 |
| Comfort ratio | 24.5 | 27.7 |
| Capsize screening | 2.00 | 1.86 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.6 | 6.8 |
| Average used price | €17,000 | €18,000 |
Comfort 32 vs Maxi 95: the short version
- The Comfort 32 and Maxi 95 are close in length (31.2 ft9.50 m vs 31.2 ft9.50 m ).
- The Maxi 95 is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Comfort 32 carries the more powerful rig (20.9 vs 16.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Maxi 95 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Maxi 95 rates better for offshore work (1.86 vs 2.00).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.