Comfort 32 vs Niagara 31
How do the Comfort 32 and Niagara 31 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 | Niagara 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.2 ft9.50 m | 31.3 ft9.53 m |
| Waterline length | 24.6 ft7.50 m | 24.3 ft7.39 m |
| Beam | 10.7 ft3.27 m | 10.3 ft3.12 m |
| Draft | 5.6 ft1.70 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 9,921 lb4,500 kg | 8,000 lb3,629 kg |
| Ballast | 3,968 lb1,800 kg | 3,550 lb1,610 kg |
| Sail area | 603 ft²56.0 m² | 492 ft²45.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 20.90 | 19.68 |
| Displacement / Length | 297 | 250 |
| Comfort ratio | 24.5 | 21.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.00 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.6 | 6.6 |
| Average used price | €17,000 | — |
Comfort 32 vs Niagara 31: the short version
- The Comfort 32 and Niagara 31 are close in length (31.2 ft9.50 m vs 31.3 ft9.53 m ).
- The Comfort 32 is heavier, displacing about 24% 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 19.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Comfort 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Comfort 32 rates better for offshore work (2.00 vs 2.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.