Hunter 356 vs 1996 Najad 380 — Comparison

Hunter 356Hunter 356
VS
1996 Najad 380

Specifications Side by Side

SpecificationHunter 3561996 Najad 380
General
ManufacturerHunterNajad
Year2000–20051996–2006
TypeSloopSloop
CountryUSASweden
DesignerGlenn HendersonJudel/Vrolijk
Dimensions
LOA10.82 m (35.5 ft)11.55 m (37.9 ft)
LWL9.30 m (30.5 ft)9.50 m (31.2 ft)
Beam3.53 m (11.6 ft)3.55 m (11.6 ft)
Draft1.80 m (5.9 ft)1.85 m (6.1 ft)
Weight
Displacement5,443 kg (12,000 lbs)7,500 kg (16,535 lbs)
Ballast2,177 kg (4,799 lbs)3,050 kg (6,724 lbs)
Sailing
Sail Area53.0 m² (571 ft²)62.0 m² (667 ft²)
Hull MaterialFiberglassFiberglass
Keel TypeFinFin
Engine & Tanks
Engine21 HP40 HP
Fuel Capacity76 L (20.1 gal)150 L (39.6 gal)
Water Capacity151 L (39.9 gal)260 L (68.7 gal)
Accommodation
Berths66
Cabins22

Performance Comparison

SA/D Ratio (Higher = more sail power per displacement)
Hunter 356
17.40
1996 Najad 380
16.44
Ballast Ratio (Higher = more stability)
Hunter 356
40.00
1996 Najad 380
40.67
Capsize Ratio (Lower = safer offshore)
Hunter 356
0.80
1996 Najad 380
0.73
Comfort Ratio (Higher = gentler motion)
Hunter 356
16.38
1996 Najad 380
20.83

Detailed Comparison

The Hunter 356 and 1996 Najad 380 represent two takes on sloop-rigged sailing. The Hunter 356 is a 2000s design by Hunter from USA, while the 1996 Najad 380 is a 1990s offering from Najad from Sweden. The Hunter 356 was penned by Glenn Henderson. The 1996 Najad 380 was designed by Judel/Vrolijk.

In terms of size, the Hunter 356 measures 10.82m (35.5ft) overall with a beam of 3.53m, compared to the 1996 Najad 380 at 11.55m (37.9ft) with a 3.55m beam. The 1996 Najad 380 is 0.73m longer than the Hunter 356. The 1996 Najad 380 displaces approximately 38% more than its counterpart, which significantly affects how each boat handles in different sea states.

Looking at performance, the Hunter 356 has good sail power for versatile performance with an SA/D ratio of 17.40 and 53.0 m² of sail area. The 1996 Najad 380, with an SA/D of 16.44 and 62.0 m² of canvas, offers moderate sail power suitable for relaxed cruising. The Hunter 356 has the edge in terms of raw sailing performance.

For comfort and safety, the Hunter 356 offers a firm, racing-oriented motion (comfort ratio: 16.4) and excellent capsize resistance suitable for offshore voyaging (capsize ratio: 0.80). The 1996 Najad 380 has a comfort ratio of 20.8 and a capsize screening value of 0.73. The ballast ratios are 40.0% for the Hunter 356 and 40.7% for the 1996 Najad 380, reflecting their respective approaches to stability.

Below deck, the Hunter 356 provides 6 berths in 2 cabins with 151L of water capacity and 76L of fuel. The 1996 Najad 380 offers 6 berths in 2 cabins with 260L water and 150L fuel capacity.

Verdict

For cruising: The 1996 Najad 380 is the better choice for comfortable cruising thanks to its higher comfort ratio, offering a gentler motion at sea that crews will appreciate on longer passages.

For racing: The Hunter 356 has the performance advantage with its superior SA/D ratio, meaning more sail power relative to its displacement for competitive sailing.

For liveaboard: Both boats provide similar accommodation, making either a viable choice for living aboard. Consider water and fuel capacity for extended stays away from marinas.

Compare Different Boats

Looking for a different matchup? Browse All Boats

Or view individual specs: Hunter 356 · 1996 Najad 380