Maxi 95 vs Niagara 31
How do the Maxi 95 and Niagara 31 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Maxi 95 | Maxi 95 | Niagara 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.2 ft9.50 m | 31.3 ft9.53 m |
| Waterline length | 25.6 ft7.80 m | 24.3 ft7.39 m |
| Beam | 10.4 ft3.16 m | 10.3 ft3.12 m |
| Draft | 5.1 ft1.55 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 11,023 lb5,000 kg | 8,000 lb3,629 kg |
| Ballast | 3,527 lb1,600 kg | 3,550 lb1,610 kg |
| Sail area | 506 ft²47.0 m² | 492 ft²45.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.35 | 19.68 |
| Displacement / Length | 294 | 250 |
| Comfort ratio | 27.7 | 21.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.86 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| Average used price | €18,000 | — |
Maxi 95 vs Niagara 31: the short version
- The Maxi 95 and Niagara 31 are close in length (31.2 ft9.50 m vs 31.3 ft9.53 m ).
- The Maxi 95 is heavier, displacing about 38% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Niagara 31 carries the more powerful rig (19.7 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 2.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.