Which Anchor Holds Best? 14 Anchors Are Put To The Test

Which anchor is the best in all conditions? It’s really a simple question. We’ve put a man on the moon, and decoded the human genome, so surely someone has designed a foolproof anchor that sets quickly in all bottoms, steadfastly holds even in storm conditions, and reliably resets if the wind veers dramatically, while also being light enough for a couple to handle on a 35-40 foot boat, and easily to retrieve when the time comes to move to your next cruising destination. How hard could it be to design and build such a simple device? During this pretty scientific test, we put thousands of pounds of force on 14 different anchors to see how much they could hold. The results may surprise you.


After three days of testing 14 different anchors in three different locations off Santa Cruz, California, myself, Jeffery Moser from Power and Motor Yacht Magazine, Toby Hodges from Yachting Monthly Magazine, and Chuck Hawley and several of his colleagues from West Marine confirmed what we knew going into the test—the effectiveness of any anchor is highly dependent on a long list of variables. Some variables (scope, anchor design, and weight) can be controlled, others like bottom surface, wind and swell, can’t. We also knew the validity of our results depended on insuring all the variables (apart from the individual anchors) were kept as uniform as possible; each anchor was tested multiple time with identical scopes in identical conditions. We tested in three different locations--on the west and east sides of Santa Cruz’s wharf, and off New Brighton Beach near Capitola. Seas had just a hint of swell in all three locations and winds varied from flat calm and never got stronger than 12-knots. Bottom samples at each location were taken using a weighted dart-like core sampler revealed the composition of the top 5 inches of the bottom surface. All three locations had a layer of fine dark sand on top of harder, finer, clay-like sand. The New Brighton location appeared to have a thinner layer of sand and a harder layer of clay-like sand than the two wharf locations.

Objective
The goal of this test was to determine the performance characteristics of 14 separate anchors (on a hard sand bottom) that their manufacturers deemed suitable to be carried on a cruising sailboat in the 35-40 foot range. We judged performance on how quickly the anchor set, its holding power (determined by digital dynamometer attached to the rode and wired into a laptop computer that recorded the force on the rode every three seconds), and if it dragged (by using visual ranges and  precise GPS measurements). Our primary test scope was 5:1 in roughly 20 feet of water but we also tested performance at 3:1 and 7:1 scopes.

We were most curious to learn the maximum holding power of each anchor that a cruiser on a 35-40 foot sailboat would actually use (in a specific test location and at a specific scope). The assembled anchors weighed roughly between 20 and 40 pounds. Many anchor tests in the past have been conducted with winches on shore or with boats that aren’t powerful enough to exert more than a 1,000 pounds of force on an anchor. As a result, lighter anchors must be used or an anchors holding ability (in some cases) can exceed a testers ability to pull it. The results of all these tests are extremely useful and contribute to the overall bank of anchor knowledge, but they can’t tell us which anchor can hold the most (in a specific location at a specific scope). We were able to exert up to 5,000 pounds on each anchor because we chartered the 52-foot, 92,000 pound research vessel @I{Shana Rae} to do the pulling. Equipped with powerful hydraulic winches, tk horsepower diesel engine, and tk diameter propeller, Captain Jim Christmann’s @I{Shana Rae} allowed us to put more force on each anchor that it would ever experience in “normal conditions”, but we were looking for the anchor that could perform well above “normal conditions” when anchor performance is most critical.

Testing procedure
During the course of assembling the anchors for the test, some manufacturers were a bit skeptical. They wanted to be sure that the test was going to be unbiased and that each anchor would be tested in the same conditions. This was the guiding principle of the test and we informed each manufacturer of our testing methodology prior to the test. No manufacturers representative was present during the testing. West Marine VP of Product Development, Chuck Hawley, and his colleagues from West Marine have vast experience conducting countless anchor tests over the years (they test each anchor design before West agrees to carry it in its stores), but never one that could show maximum holding power on anchors weighing between 20 and 40 lbs. West Marine sells roughly half the anchors we tested.

We made the testing procedure as uniform and scientific as possible. Each anchor was pulled on the same rode (20 feet of 5/8ths chain with the remainder 1 inch nylon rope) at least 3 times at 5:1 scope. We moved the test boat over (confirming our new location with the GPS) before each new pull to insure the anchor had a chance to set in a fresh sea bed, and instead of testing each anchor three times in succession, we pulled the first anchor, weighed it, moved the boat, set the second anchor, weighed it, an so on, to make absolutely sure that no one anchor would have the benefit of a specific area of the bottom. We also tested the anchors at 3:1 scope, 7:1 scope, and separately tested what happened when we veered sharply on the anchors. Scope was determined by the Shauna Rae’s depth finder and confirmed by a manual plumb bob. Using the @I{Shana Rae’s} hydraulics eased this job tremendously, but after humping anchors for three days at three different locations and well over 100 pulls, we had some sore muscles. We also pulled each anchor in wet sand on the beach with a boat close to shore. This was not to test holding power, but rather so we could easily see the characteristics of how each anchor set.

Each test was conducted the same way. The anchor was attached to the rode and then dropped over the side. The rode was attached to the dynamometer that was wired to a PC that recorded the strain on the gauge every three seconds. The boat idled forward until the appropriate scope payed out and the anchor had set. Once a set was confirmed, engine revs were slowly increased until the anchor dragged, released, or reached 5,000 pounds. Observations like “holds up to 2,000 ponds then drags slowly” or “seems to skip along the bottom” were recorded for each pull, and then the whole process was repeated with the next anchor.

Data and analysis
The digital dynamometer’s readings were recorded automatically every three seconds. Not only were we able to record the maximum force exerted on the anchor, we also were able to graph how increased force affected the anchor and incorporate highly accurate time and GPS data to show an anchor dragging with the data as well as with visual range marking. Thanks to Phil Cowley of West Marine who provided the dynamometer as well as the software expertise to put all the data into the computer, this process virtually eliminated the potential errors that could arise from physically jotting down readings of over 100 pulls at different scopes. Needless to say we got pretty good at the whole testing process and ended up with a wealth of extremely accurate data. Dinner after each day of testing was consumed with debriefing the days results. Everything from bottom sampling, hydraulic crane operation, to each anchors performance or surprising lack of performance was dissected. Then when we were all back in our respective offices, each anchor’s performance was discussed again via a conference call to confirm our analysis. Here’s what we found.

The Results

Bullwagga

The concept behind the Bullwagga is fairly straightforward. Its three high surface area flukes are designed to insure that two flukes will always be properly oriented to dig in no matter how the anchor comes to rest on the bottom. The shank fits loosely in the center of the anchor to help keep uniform force on the two flukes as they dig in. For all of our test pulls the Bullwagga set quickly and held a maximum of 2,974 pounds of force before releasing abruptly rather than dragging. Test results show this anchor should be able to handle the force a 35-40 foot boat can exert on an anchor, as long as you have a minimum of 5:1 scope, performance dropped off dramatically at 3:1. Overall the results for the Bullwagga were good, but good luck trying to get it to set on your bow roller, and good luck trying to store it in a locker. Its unconventional shape makes it difficult to fit on a bow roller when not in use and it can’t be taken apart to be stored easily down below. That said, it comes as close as “throw it overboard it’s sure to catch something” as any of the anchors we tested, and could be a useful back-up/kedge anchor provided you have considerable extra stowage space.

Claw

The Claw is Lewmar’s version of a Bruce-type anchor that cruisers have been using for years. It stows easily on the bow in roller when not it use, it’s one piece construction is super-strong, and it’s reportedly designed to be effective in a variety of seabeds. Some cruisers may say this style of anchor has a reputation for not being as effective in mud and soft sand, but we were not testing in mud or soft sand. However, our test results came as a bit of a surprise--the maximum force we recorded with 5:1 scope was 886 pounds. And that was only a short spike before the anchor released completely. During most of the 5:1 pulls, it seemed to set and release rapidly without ever really digging in. One pull showed it was slowly dragging at about 300 pounds of force, but never really enough to say the anchor has set with any certainty. We recorded similar results at 7:1 scope. A possible hypothesis among the group was that the Claw’s flukes were simply not sharp enough to penetrate the harder clay-like sand. The beach pull was also telling in that the claw dug a much longer trench than other anchors that produced better results during the holding power pulls.

www.lewmar.com

CQR

The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that returned surprising results. The maximum force we recorded during our first three pulls at 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time, all we were recording was the load created by pulling the anchor and rode unencumbered along the bottom. During those pulls we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went, or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it just seemed to skip along the surface of the bottom. The anchor did briefly hold over 2,000 pounds of force on pull four, west of the wharf, but those first three pulls did not inspire confidence and we were not able to replicate the results of pull four even when the rode was increased to 7:1 scope. It’s relatively sharp point looked capable of penetrating the layers of sand, but it appears something kept its point from digging in except when we got that 2,000 pound reading. Like the Claw, the CQR has been around for years and also dug a considerable trench on the beach.
www.lewmar.com

Delta

The Delta is a one-piece, plow-type anchor with high surface area flukes. It was one of several anchors that held substantial force on multiple pulls east of the wharf. On one 5:1 pull, it set quickly and held firm up to 5,000 pounds. During two other 5:1 pulls, it held to a max of about 3,500 pounds, then slowly dragged (holding 3,500 pounds) for about 600 feet until releasing. Performance results dropped off considerably at the other locations. It appears the Delta’s angled fixed shank, relatively sharp point, and high surface area flukes helped it set quickly and hold (up to a point) as long as the scope was at least 5:1. Performance declined sharply at 3:1. The beach pull confirmed that the anchor set and dug in almost immediately rather than plowing a long trench.
www.lewmar.com

Fortress

The Fortress was one of several anchors we tested that consistently set quickly and held to 5,000 pounds on multiple sets in multiple locations. It’s sharp, high surface area flukes dug in immediately. As we increased the loads and the rode became bow-string tight, the boat shuddered and kicked out impressive turbulence from the stern but the boat didn’t move an inch. Weighing only 22 pounds, the Fortress was also one of the lightest anchors we tested and it was also the easiest to stow (it can be broken down and fit into a slim storage bag). It also held over 5,000 pounds at 3:1 scope as well. By combining light weight, quick set and retrieval ability, enormous holding power at a variety of scopes, and easy stowability, the Fortress ranked high among all the anchors we tested. However, we did bend a fluke slightly during our veering test. This was while the anchor was under considerable load so it would be unfair to say anything other than it withstood a tremendous amount of abuse and still functioned properly. The Fortress’s biggest drawback may be that it could be difficult (but not impossible) to secure it unobtrusively on a bow roller when not in use. 
www.fortressanchors.com

Hydrobubble

When placed alongside all the anchors in our test, the Hydrobubble didn’t get much respect—until it started reeling off 5,000 pound pulls. The minimal buoyancy of the bubble helps the anchor orient its heavy stainless-steel blade so it’s always positioned to dig in at the optimal angle. Quick sets and multiple 5,000 pound pulls at 5:1 scope prove it worked beautifully every time. What’s most curious about the Hydrobubble is the shape of its blade. Instead of flukes that are shaped somewhat like an airplane wing with it’s flaps up (similar to the Delta and CQR), the blade of the Hydrobubble forms an upside-down V. It seems the pulling forces of the shank drive the flat V-shaped blade deeper into the bottom rather than using a more conventional plow-type resistance. This could help explain how it penetrated the hard bottom even though the point wasn’t exceptionally sharp. This anchor exceeded our capacity to exert force on it, and I was still able to take it apart and bring it back from California in my luggage. It may look unconventional, but the anchor with the effervescent name may represent a new and effective way to anchor a boat.

Manson Supreme

The Manson Supreme is one of several newer generation anchors we tested that combine a rigid shank, sharp point, scoop-like (rather than a plow-type) blade, and a roll bar that insures the anchor is always properly oriented on the sea bed. It was also one of the anchors that set quickly and produced multiple 5,000 pound pulls at 5:1 scope east of wharf. Results from the other locations were less but still substantial, consistently topping out at  2,500 pounds before releasing. The Manson was one of the better performers at all locations and it was also able to withstand 5,000 pounds at 3:1 scope. On the beach, it dug in without dragging and it’s shape appears able to fit into most bow rollers but it would protrude more than a claw or a CQR and its roll bar could possibly interfere with some bow pulpits. It was one of the top rated anchors we tested however it’s very similar in design to the Rocna. Rocna’s manufacturer contends the Manson infringes on their patent.
www.manson-marine.co.nz

Oceane

The most obvious difference between the Oceane and the other one-piece, plow/scoop type anchors we tested is how it’s C-shaped shank attaches right at the front of the scoop close to the point. Our on-the beach observations showed the Oceane pivoted quickly on it’s sharp point and the C-shaped shank did a good job of converting the lateral force of the rode into downward/digging force on the scoop. However the Oceane did not produce consistent results during our load tests. East of the wharf, and at New Brighton, the Oceanne failed to set after multiple attempts at both 5:1 and 7:1 scopes. However, west of the wharf, it set immediately recorded multiple maximum pulls. None of the other anchors we tested had such profoundly different results between venues and the reason for those results is not readily apparent. The Oceane’s unique shape also make it very difficult to stow on a bow roller.

West Marine Performance 20 

 The Performance 20 is a danforth-stye anchor marketed by West Marine, so when we consistently (and curiously) we’re unable to get the anchor to set at a variety of scopes and locations, there was considerable scratching of heads among the West Marine contingent. For the majority of pulls at increasingly longer scopes, the anchor seemed to set and release quickly, or to just skip along the bottom. Several pulls showed brief spikes up to about 700 pounds and then quickly released. It also briefly held 1,500 pounds at 5:1 before slowly dragging an releasing off New Brighton. But that was only one pull of many, and hardly enough to show the anchor capable of holding anything similar to that number with regularity. The Fortress showed how effective a danforth-type anchor could be, so the only explanation the team could postulate was that the particular anchor we tested didn’t have sharp enough flukes to penetrate the hard, clay-like sand.

www.westmarine.com

Rocna

The Manson is very similar in design to the Rocna, but the Rocna yielded slightly better results. Both withstood maximum pulls east of the wharf and had similar holding power at both 5:1 and 3:1 scopes; the Rocna held slightly more at the other two locations before dragging and releasing. Like the Manson, the Rocna’s sharp point/roll bar was one of the better performing designs we tested, but it also has similar potential draw backs such as how much it could protrude on a bow roller and potential pulpit restrictions. Unlike the Manson, the Rocna’s blade was more angular and fitted with slightly upturned flaps at the back and it’s shank was slightly longer. These subtle differences could provide a possible explanation for the Rocna’s slightly better test results.
www.rocna.com

Sarca Anchorlight

The Sarca was unlike any of the other anchors we tested. It consists of a high surface area triangular blade, a pronounced roll bar, and a hollowed out shank that allows the shackle to side forward when it comes time to retrieve. It’s sharp point (it could cut you if you weren’t careful) appeared well suited to penetrating the hard sand and that proved to be true. On every 5:1 pull at all three locations it set quickly, but never recorded holding power over 3,000 pounds. The data shows it consistently held between 1,500 and 3,000 pounds before dragging and releasing. Similar numbers were recorded after the 3:1 pull. The anchor’s setting consistency deserves a high rating but several other anchors we tested set with similar consistency and held considerable more load and the Sarca’s bulky design could be troublesome on a bow roller.
www.anchorright.com.au/

Spade

With the likes of tried-and-true designs like the bruce-style Claw, CQR, and the danforth-style Performance 20 not producing stellar results, we weren’t sure what to expect from the ol’ spade. It turned out to be one of the best performing anchors at 5:1 scope. Multiple pulls at both wharf locations returned 5,000 pound load readings that our slightly punchy test team started calling “full pulls”. It’s simple weighted point and medium surface area blade easily penetrated and held without dragging. Results fell off dramatically however at 3:1 scope and at the New Brighton location. Our beach pulls illustrate why the spade was so successful. The heavily weighted point immediately dug in and nearly buried not only the blade, but the shank as well.

www.spadeanchorusa.com/

Wasi

The stainless steel Wasi has a roll bar like some of the other anchors we tested but its blade and shank design are quite unique. The blade consists of a flat, heavy triangle and the shank angle is much more pronounced than any of the other anchors have. This angle appears to provide the required downward force required to propel the flat blade down into the bottom and test results show it works. The wasi set quickly at 5:1, held to 3,000 pounds and dragged before releasing when the load topped 4,000 pounds. Results were similar at 3:1.
www.swisstech-america.com

XYZ

The XYZ anchor was by far the most innovative design we tested. Weighing in at only 13 pounds (but still suitable for a 35-40 foot boat according to its manufacturer) its holding ability depends solely on how well it can dig into the bottom. It’s blade looks like a stealth bomber wing, and its curved shank attaches near the sharp point on the front. The shank is also equipped with a knob that insures the XYZ will flip over if it land upside down on the bottom. On the beach it flipped over and dug a long trench in the wet sand. However, no matter how hard we tried, we could not get the XYZ to set in any of our tests. We recorded interment readings that maxed out at about 300 pounds, but we were never able to get a legitimate set at any location and at any scope. It seemed that the blade just skipped along the bottom.

Conclusion
After 3 full days, over 100 test pulls, and countless hours crunching numbers and analyzing data, we learned a great deal about all the anchors we tested and about the challenges of anchor testing. Having several anchors with established reputations fail to set sparked many hours of debate. We questioned our methodology and tried to determine what could be done to insure that all anchors could at least return some results apart from “did not set”. Like psudo-scientists we had hypothesized about which anchor would perform the best before the test and then proved (or disproved) those thoughts with scientific experimentation. In the end, we concluded that each anchor was treated exactly the same and the fact that some preformed better than others was simply the results we came up with on those three days of testing. The boat, rode, scopes, locations, and testing methodology did not change. Each anchor was tested in the same conditions and the results were simply recorded and analyzed. The anchors that returned poor results in our test may produce better results in different conditions. Many anchors are never called upon to withstand loads over several thousand pounds, but wouldn’t you feel safer and sleep easier knowing that the only thing keeping your boat from drifting up on the rocks in a distant anchorage will stay set even if 5,000 pounds of force (like a storm) is applied?

By learning which anchors set most consistently and had the highest holding power (in our specific test) we hope to shed some light and dispel some myths about how these 14 anchors can perform in test conditions. They ended up in three distinct groups:

Excellent (these anchors consistently held to or close to 5,000 pounds at several different locations and scopes and could also be stowed easily on a bow roller or in a locker)
Fortress
Manson
Hydrobubble
Rocna
Spade

Good (these anchors set held over 1000 pounds)
Bullwagga
Delta
Oceane
Sarca
Wasi

Poor (these anchors failed to produce quantifiable results)
Claw
CQR
West Marine Performance 20
XYZ