A useful sanity check, and a bad valuation method.
What it measures
Only price and length. It says nothing about internal volume, build standard, material, machinery, interior condition, specification or flag — which is to say it omits most of what determines a yacht's value.
Where it is useful
Within a tight comparable group — similar builder tier, similar generation, similar type — it is a fast way to spot a yacht sitting notably above or below her peers, and a prompt to ask why. The answer is usually condition, specification or motivation.
Where it fails
Across build standards and types it breaks down completely. A high-volume displacement yacht and a lighter planing yacht of the same length are different assets. Two yachts of the same length from different tiers of builder are not comparable on any per-metre basis.
- Ignores internal volume and number of decks
- Ignores build standard and material
- Ignores machinery, systems and interior condition
- Distorted by price on application and stale listings
- Meaningless across different builder tiers
Better comparisons
Volume-based comparison is more informative where the figures are available, and condition-adjusted comparison against a defined peer set more informative still. For anything that matters, use a surveyor's or valuer's opinion rather than a ratio.
How we use it
As a sanity check inside a size band and builder tier, never as a valuation, and never published for a segment where the sample is too small to be meaningful.
Questions
- Is a low price per metre a good deal?
- Not necessarily. It usually reflects volume, build standard or condition rather than value.
- Is volume a better measure?
- Generally yes, where gross tonnage figures are available and comparable.
Figures shown here are drawn from yachts Lund Group currently tracks and are indicative of that sample only. They are not a valuation, an offer, or a statement of the wider market, and segments with too few yachts to be meaningful are not published.