Last updated September 15, 2026
Annapurna Summit Success Rate: 27.1% in the Current Himalayan Database
The most important number on Annapurna is not a dramatic “1-in-4” headline. It is knowing what the denominator actually is. The current Himalayan Database lists 557 summit records from 2,059 expedition-member records, a 27.1% member summit rate. It also records 75 deaths. Those numbers create several different risk ratios—and they should never be presented as if they mean the same thing.
What is the Annapurna I summit success rate?
The current Himalayan Database 8,000-meter comparison lists Annapurna I with 271 expeditions, 2,059 member records, 557 summit records and 75 deaths. Its published summit rate is 27.1%.
That 27.1% figure is calculated from summit records divided by recorded expedition-member records. It is useful for comparing peaks inside the same database, but it should not be interpreted as a promise that a climber booking Annapurna today has exactly a 27.1% probability of summiting.
Modern expedition structure, weather, route conditions, team experience, oxygen strategy and the composition of the historical dataset all affect an individual expedition. The historical rate is a database statistic—not a personalized forecast.
Summit records divided by expedition-member records.
Recorded deaths divided by expedition-member records.
A mortality-to-success ratio—not an attempt death probability.
Uses successful ascents as the denominator.
Three Annapurna percentages—and three different questions
A percentage is meaningless until you know who is in the denominator.
557 summit records ÷ 2,059 member records. This is the summit-rate figure currently published in the Himalayan Database’s 8,000-meter comparison.
75 recorded deaths ÷ 2,059 member records. This is the HDB mortality statistic with expedition members as the denominator.
75 deaths ÷ 557 summit records. Useful as a historical risk-comparison ratio, but not equivalent to “13.46% of climbers die.”
How Annapurna compares with the main Nepal Himalayan 8,000ers
This table uses one current Himalayan Database source so the summit and death-rate denominators remain comparable across the peaks.
| Peak | Member records | Summits | HDB summit rate | Deaths | Deaths / members |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everest | 26,316 | 13,550 | 51.5% | 344 | 1.31% |
| Kangchenjunga | 1,749 | 682 | 39.0% | 54 | 3.09% |
| Lhotse | 3,477 | 1,465 | 42.1% | 25 | 0.72% |
| Makalu | 2,898 | 886 | 30.6% | 51 | 1.76% |
| Cho Oyu | 9,208 | 4,056 | 44.0% | 52 | 0.56% |
| Dhaulagiri I | 2,999 | 706 | 23.5% | 92 | 3.07% |
| Manaslu | 7,085 | 3,238 | 45.7% | 90 | 1.27% |
| Annapurna I | 2,059 | 557 | 27.1% | 75 | 3.64% |
Is Annapurna really the deadliest 8,000er?
The answer depends on the dataset and definition. That qualification belongs in the article—not buried in a methodology footnote.
13.42% deaths / ascents
Guinness World Records currently identifies Annapurna I as the deadliest Himalayan mountain using 75 fatalities divided by 559 successful ascents.
13.46% deaths / summits
The current HDB snapshot lists 75 deaths and 557 summit records. Slight source-date differences explain why its successful-ascent denominator differs from Guinness.
3.64% deaths / members
Using expedition-member records instead of successful summits produces a much smaller—but still exceptionally serious—historical mortality figure.
Why Annapurna’s reputation remains so severe
Correcting an exaggerated denominator does not make the mountain safe. Annapurna remains an extreme high-altitude objective with a historically serious avalanche record.
Avalanche exposure
Guinness says the majority of recorded Annapurna I deaths occur around an avalanche zone near 5,900 meters between Camps II and III.
The hazard is not historical only
The Himalayan Database records two hired-staff deaths in an avalanche during a 2025 North Face expedition, showing that avalanche exposure remains relevant in the modern supported era.
Altitude remains fundamental
Even without avalanche exposure, Annapurna is an 8,000-meter expedition involving extreme hypoxia, long acclimatization, high camps and a narrow operating margin.
For hazard mechanics rather than statistics, use the Avalanche Awareness for Climbers guide. It explains why avalanche terrain must be assessed from current snow, weather and route conditions rather than from a historical mountain-wide percentage.
The data becomes weaker when the cohort becomes smaller
The prior page gave highly specific percentages by route, guiding model and experience level without exposing reproducible source tables. Those figures have been removed.
A route-specific percentage should be published only when the route denominator is reproducible from the underlying dataset.
Guided, supported, commercial, independent, member and hired-worker classifications need explicit source definitions before comparison.
A useful-sounding predictor is not enough; the sample size and query method must be visible before it becomes a published statistic.
Historical expedition termination records can be complex and multi-causal. We do not publish a precise share without a reproducible coded dataset.
Spring dominates modern Himalayan climbing, but month-specific rates require a denominator for all climbers present—not only a count of successful summit dates.
Rescue and evacuation data are not consistently captured enough across the full historical record to make that a comparable mountain-wide rate here.
What these numbers should—and should not—change in your planning
Success-rate data is useful for context, comparison and question-building. It should never replace current route, weather and operator analysis.
Use rates comparatively
Compare peaks inside one dataset using the same denominator. That shows Annapurna’s unusual historical risk profile without inventing personal odds.
Ask about the current route
Current snow loading, serac exposure, fixing progress, high-camp locations and recent avalanche activity matter more to the coming expedition than a 75-year average.
Audit the operator
Ask who makes the no-go call, who interprets avalanche conditions, what weather service is used, how high-altitude staff are supported and what happens if the route is not acceptable.
Protect the descent
A summit percentage says nothing about how much oxygen, weather margin, rescue capacity or physical reserve a team preserved for the return to Base Camp.
Start with the full Annapurna I Climbing Guide, then check mountaineering insurance above 6,000 m before comparing expedition contracts.
Annapurna I summit success and mortality questions
Every percentage below is labeled by denominator so success and mortality statistics do not blur together.
What is the Annapurna summit success rate?
The current Himalayan Database comparison lists 557 summit records from 2,059 expedition-member records, producing a published member summit rate of 27.1% through 2025.
How many people have summited Annapurna I?
The current Himalayan Database report lists 557 summit records. Guinness uses 559 successful ascents in its February 2026 record page because its source snapshot and counting date differ slightly. Small differences between reputable databases should be reported rather than silently forced into one number.
What is Annapurna’s death rate?
Using the current Himalayan Database member denominator, Annapurna has 75 recorded deaths among 2,059 member records, or 3.64%. The same database also reports 75 deaths relative to 557 summit records, producing a 13.46% deaths-to-summits ratio.
Why does Guinness say 13.42%?
Guinness divides 75 recorded fatalities by 559 successful ascents. That calculation equals 13.42%. It is a deaths-to-successful-ascents ratio—not a statement that 13.42% of everyone who attempts Annapurna dies.
Is the old 32% Annapurna death rate still accurate?
No. The famous historical figure came from earlier eras when Annapurna had far fewer successful ascents. Modern summit totals have increased substantially, which has reduced the deaths-to-summits ratio. Current HDB and Guinness figures are around 13.4% using that particular denominator.
Is Annapurna the deadliest 8,000-meter mountain?
Guinness currently identifies Annapurna I as the deadliest Himalayan mountain in its Nepal-Himalaya comparison using deaths divided by successful ascents. In the current Himalayan Database, Annapurna also has the highest deaths-per-member rate among the principal Nepal Himalayan 8,000-meter peaks at 3.64%. Global comparisons with K2 and Nanga Parbat require another compatible dataset.
Does Annapurna have the lowest summit rate?
Not in the current Himalayan Database 8,000-meter comparison. Annapurna I is listed at 27.1%, while Dhaulagiri I is lower at 23.5%. That is why this page no longer describes Annapurna as the lowest-success regularly climbed 8,000er.
Why is Annapurna so dangerous?
Avalanche exposure is a major historical factor. Guinness reports that the majority of Annapurna I deaths occur near an avalanche point around 5,900 meters between Camps II and III. The Himalayan Database also documents modern avalanche fatalities, including two hired staff during a 2025 North Face expedition.
The denominator is part of the citation
Numbers are updated only when a source exposes enough information to reproduce the calculation.
- Himalayan Database — 8,000 m Peak Comparison — current Annapurna I totals: 271 expeditions, 2,059 member records, 557 summits, 75 deaths, 27.1% summit rate and 3.64% death rate.
- Himalayan Database — Most Dangerous Peaks — explicitly separates deaths/summits from deaths/members and lists Annapurna I at 13.46% and 3.64%, respectively.
- Guinness World Records — Deadliest Himalayan Mountain — 75 fatalities / 559 successful ascents = 13.42%; record dated February 7, 2026.
- Himalayan Database — Database Summary — explains the scope and structure of the current database, which covers expeditions through 2025.
Continue the Annapurna research with the denominator intact
Success rate answers one question. Route difficulty, avalanche exposure, operator quality, insurance and readiness answer different ones. Use each page for the decision it actually owns.
Was this helpful?
🏔Related safety data
🧭Explore & compare
Global Summit Guide is an independent mountaineering resource founded in 2026. The team combines first-hand trekking and climbing experience with in-depth research and professional health and nutrition review to help climbers choose objectives, prepare properly, and stay safe.
Health, altitude, and nutrition content is reviewed by Taylor Ludlow (Registered Nurse) and Brigg Hoopes (Nutritionist).
What We Don't Know Yet
Mountain information changes quickly. This box explains the limits of what this page can responsibly promise.
- Fitness and altitude response vary by person; no guide, itinerary, or training plan can guarantee acclimatization or summit success.
- Route conditions, snowpack, closures, and weather can change quickly after this page is updated.
- Permit rules, fees, quotas, and reservation windows may change between review cycles.
- Operator availability, pricing, guide ratios, and cancellation terms can change by season.
- Your fitness, altitude response, risk tolerance, and experience level may change what is safe or realistic.
Verify current conditions with official land managers, guide services, local forecasts, and current route reports before booking or climbing.
Mountaineering, rock and ice climbing, glacier travel, and high-altitude activity are inherently dangerous and can result in serious injury or death. The information on Global Summit Guide is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional instruction, qualified guiding, proper equipment, or your own judgment and experience.
Route conditions, weather, snowpack, permits, regulations, and hazards change constantly and may differ from what is described here. Details may be incomplete, out of date, or contain errors. Always verify current information with local authorities, certified guides, and official sources before making any decision in the mountains.
Nothing on this site is medical, legal, or financial advice. Our fitness, acclimatization, altitude, and nutrition content is general in nature; consult a qualified physician before beginning any strenuous exercise program or exposing yourself to high altitude.
You are solely responsible for your own safety and decisions. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Global Summit Guide and its team accept no liability for any loss, injury, damage, or expense arising from use of, or reliance on, this information. By using this site you acknowledge these risks and accept these terms.
Some links on this site may be affiliate links. If you buy through them we may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you; this never affects our recommendations.
Global Summit Guide recommendation path
Next Best Mountain to Research
Use these recommendations to continue the right planning path instead of stopping on one page.
Use current permit, weather, route, and operator information before booking or climbing.