Ontario 32 vs Viking 33
How do the Ontario 32 and Viking 33 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Ontario 32 
Viking 33 | Ontario 32 | Viking 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 33.6 ft10.24 m |
| Waterline length | 26.5 ft8.08 m | 27.2 ft8.28 m |
| Beam | 11.0 ft3.35 m | 9.8 ft3.00 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 9,800 lb4,445 kg | 8,807 lb3,995 kg |
| Ballast | 3,977 lb1,804 kg | 4,512 lb2,047 kg |
| Sail area | 481 ft²44.7 m² | 519 ft²48.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.81 | 19.47 |
| Displacement / Length | 235 | 196 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.1 | 22.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.06 | 1.90 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 7.0 |
Ontario 32 vs Viking 33: the short version
- The Viking 33 is the larger boat at 33.6 ft10.24 m LOA versus 32.0 ft9.75 m for the Ontario 32.
- The Ontario 32 is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Viking 33 carries the more powerful rig (19.5 vs 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Viking 33 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Viking 33 rates better for offshore work (1.90 vs 2.06).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.