Hunter 31 vs Marieholm 32 / 32E
How do the Hunter 31 and Marieholm 32 / 32E compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 31 | Hunter 31 | Marieholm 32 / 32E | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.3 ft9.55 m | 31.4 ft9.56 m |
| Waterline length | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 23.9 ft7.30 m |
| Beam | 10.9 ft3.33 m | 9.8 ft3.00 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.62 m | 5.1 ft1.55 m |
| Displacement | 9,700 lb4,400 kg | 7,716 lb3,500 kg |
| Ballast | 4,000 lb1,814 kg | 2,866 lb1,300 kg |
| Sail area | 458 ft²42.5 m² | 479 ft²44.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.11 | 19.63 |
| Displacement / Length | 239 | 251 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.4 | 21.7 |
| Capsize screening | 2.05 | 1.99 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 6.6 |
| Average used price | — | €24,000 |
Hunter 31 vs Marieholm 32 / 32E: the short version
- The Hunter 31 and Marieholm 32 / 32E are close in length (31.3 ft9.55 m vs 31.4 ft9.56 m ).
- The Hunter 31 is heavier, displacing about 26% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marieholm 32 / 32E carries the more powerful rig (19.6 vs 16.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 31 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marieholm 32 / 32E rates better for offshore work (1.99 vs 2.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.