Hunter 26 vs MacGregor 26
How do the Hunter 26 and MacGregor 26 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 26 
MacGregor 26 | Hunter 26 | MacGregor 26 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 25.8 ft7.85 m | 25.8 ft7.87 m |
| Waterline length | 23.2 ft7.06 m | 23.0 ft7.01 m |
| Beam | 9.0 ft2.74 m | 7.7 ft2.36 m |
| Draft | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 4,600 lb2,087 kg | 2,250 lb1,021 kg |
| Ballast | 2,000 lb907 kg | 1,500 lb680 kg |
| Sail area | 291 ft²27.0 m² | 241 ft²22.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.83 | 22.46 |
| Displacement / Length | 165 | 83 |
| Comfort ratio | 15.9 | 9.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 2.36 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.4 | 6.4 |
Hunter 26 vs MacGregor 26: the short version
- The Hunter 26 and MacGregor 26 are close in length (25.8 ft7.85 m vs 25.8 ft7.87 m ).
- The Hunter 26 is heavier, displacing about 104% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the MacGregor 26 carries the more powerful rig (22.5 vs 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 26 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 26 rates better for offshore work (2.16 vs 2.36).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.