Last updated September 4, 2026
Annapurna Death Rate: 75 Deaths, 559 Climbs & What 13.42% Means
Guinness World Records publishes 75 deaths from 559 Annapurna I ascents, or 13.42%. The current Himalayan Database shows the same 75 deaths but 557 summits, producing 13.46%, and also reports 75 deaths among 2,059 expedition members, or 3.64%. Those numbers answer different statistical questions—and none is the chance that one climber dies on one attempt.
Annapurna’s Current Published Ratio Is About 13.4%—Not 32%.
Guinness currently identifies Annapurna I as the deadliest mountain in its Nepal-Himalaya 8,000er comparison, using 75 deaths / 559 ascents = 13.42%. Its record page is dated February 7, 2026 and says the underlying data are as of February 7, 2025.
The live Himalayan Database now reports 75 deaths / 557 summits = 13.46%. It also reports 75 deaths / 2,059 expedition members = 3.64%. The two sources differ slightly in recorded ascent/summit totals, but both tell the same broad story: Annapurna remains an extreme mortality outlier even though the famous historic ~32% shorthand is outdated.
The mountain’s defining hazard is not one technical move. Guinness says the majority of deaths occur around an avalanche point near 5,900 metres between Camp II and Camp III.
Why 13.42% and 13.46% Are Both on This Page
The difference is two recorded ascents/summits—not a disagreement over Annapurna’s mortality profile.
13.42%
Guinness publishes Annapurna I as the deadliest mountain in its Nepal-Himalaya comparison. The record entry is dated February 7, 2026 and says the underlying Himalayan Database figures are as of February 7, 2025.
13.46%
The live Most Dangerous Peaks report contains a broader set of current columns: expedition members, summits, deaths, deaths/summits and deaths/members. It is the better source when the question is how different denominators change the interpretation.
Which “Annapurna Death Rate” Do You Mean?
Choose a metric. The arithmetic changes because the denominator changes.
Four Useful Numbers—Four Different Questions
Only the first two are deaths divided by successful climbs/summits. The third uses expedition members. The fourth is recorded summits divided by recorded members.
Historical deaths relative to recorded successful ascents
Useful for comparing Annapurna with the other Nepal 8,000ers in the same Guinness table. It is not the percentage of all climbers who attempt Annapurna and die.
Where Annapurna’s Avalanche Risk Concentrates
Guinness identifies an avalanche point around 5,900 m between Camp II and Camp III as the major concentration of Annapurna I fatalities.
The statistic has a place on the mountain.
Guinness says the majority of Annapurna I deaths occur around one avalanche point near 5,900 m. This is the clearest reason the mountain’s mortality story cannot be explained by altitude alone.
- Repeated crossings through avalanche-exposed terrain
- Snow and ice conditions change by storm cycle and season
- Technical skill can reduce time exposed but cannot remove hanging objective hazard
How Annapurna Went From “~32%” to About 13.4%
The older percentages were real snapshots. They became outdated as more successful ascents accumulated.
~27–32% becomes Annapurna’s reputation number
For years Annapurna was described as roughly one death for every three successful summits. The exact percentage varied with cutoff date and source.
Guinness publishes 27.6%
At that point Guinness recorded 69 deaths and 261 ascents. A small summit denominator made each fatality occupy a large share of the cumulative ratio.
Guinness publishes 13.42%
The record page uses 75 deaths and 559 ascents. The numerator grew by six; the ascent denominator more than doubled from the 2018 figure.
13.46% deaths/summits · 3.64% deaths/members
The direct HDB report shows 75 deaths, 557 summits and 2,059 expedition members. The slight 557-versus-559 difference does not change the interpretation.
What 13.46% and 3.64% Look Like Side by Side
Annapurna’s Defining Problem Is Objective Hazard.
A climber can improve technique, move faster and choose a better forecast window. None of those actions can make hanging ice, avalanche paths or storm-loaded slopes completely controllable.
Photo: Bijay Chaurasia · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons
How Annapurna’s Risks Combine
A database may record one primary cause even when several factors created the final exposure.
Avalanche / Serac
Snow loading or hanging ice creates a hazard the team cannot fully control.
Repeated Crossings
Camp stocking, rope fixing and acclimatization can require more than one passage through threatened terrain.
Weather / Route Work
Fresh snow, wind or incomplete route preparation can keep climbers exposed for longer.
Altitude / Fatigue
Slower movement and weaker recovery make escape from a developing problem harder.
High-Mountain Reality
Search teams can face the same unstable slope that caused the accident.
A Case Study in Repeated Avalanche Exposure
Guinness records seven Annapurna deaths in 1991, including six killed in a single avalanche on September 19. The AAJ expedition account shows the warning pattern that preceded the disaster.
climbers swept by one avalanche in the North Face / Dutch Rib camp system. Five died after being carried down to the Camp III area; one Sherpa was never found.
Large avalanches repeatedly crossed the mountain and destroyed Korean Camps I, II and III at different times.
An American team occupied Camp IV at about 7,325 m and planned to rest before a summit attempt.
Six Sherpas and two Koreans moved above the camp area. The AAJ account notes concern about camping higher without avalanche protection.
A large avalanche crossed Camp IV, partially buried tents and swept four Sherpas and two Koreans down the mountain.
Five were carried to around Camp III and died from internal injuries; one Sherpa disappeared. Fresh unstable snow and wind later drove the remaining team down.
The Avalanche Problem Did Not End With the Historic Era
The Himalayan Database records two hired climber deaths in a 2025 North Face expedition after an avalanche struck above Camp I.
Avalanche at About 5,600 m
The HDB expedition notes say a large avalanche swept down from above Camp I around noon while the team was ferrying oxygen cylinders for the summit push. Three hired climbers were caught.
Ngima Tashi Sherpa & Rima Rinje Sherpa
Both were recorded as hired climbers who died/disappeared in the avalanche. A third worker, Pemba Thenduk, was also swept but managed to hold his ground and began searching.
Two Helicopters + Five Sherpas
The expedition notes record two search helicopters and five Sherpas assisting. After four days without finding the missing men, the search was suspended because continuing on the unstable slopes was placing additional people at risk.
Better Rescue Cannot Remove the Hazard
Modern communications, helicopters and organized teams improve the response. They cannot guarantee a safe search after a large avalanche or eliminate the slope exposure that caused the accident.
Selected Annapurna Fatality History
These cases are included because they show different hazard systems—not as a collection of famous deaths.
Falling ice on descent
Clough died after the British South Face expedition, an early reminder that retreat can remain exposed after the summit goal has been achieved.
Rockfall on the South Face
The acclaimed British alpinist was struck by a falling rock, illustrating a different objective-hazard mechanism from the North Face avalanche story.
North Face / Dutch Rib camp system
The single September 19 avalanche becomes the central event in Annapurna’s deadliest recorded year.
Fatal fall during descent
Béghin died during a South Face attempt, reinforcing the technical and retreat exposure on Annapurna’s harder faces.
Avalanche on Annapurna
Boukreev and his partners were caught during a winter attempt, adding another major avalanche event to the mountain’s modern history.
Medical emergency high on the mountain
A large international rescue effort could not save Ochoa after he became critically ill high on Annapurna, illustrating the limits of upper-mountain rescue.
Disappearance on the South Face
Park and two teammates disappeared while attempting a new route, another example of Annapurna’s committing nonstandard terrain.
Avalanche above Camp I
The current HDB record places the accident around 5,600 m and records two hired-climber deaths.
North Face vs. South Face Exposure
The fatality ratio belongs to Annapurna I as a mountain history, not to one identical route used for seventy years.
Avalanche & Serac Exposure
The modern standard expedition system is shaped around reducing—rather than eliminating—objective snow and ice hazard. Guinness’ ~5,900 m fatality concentration sits in this lower-to-middle mountain problem. Modern teams can alter lines and camps as conditions change.
- Repeated camp and load movement
- Avalanche paths between lower camps
- Serac and hanging-ice exposure
- Route line can change by season
More Technical, More Committing
Annapurna’s South Face contains historic extreme routes where steep rock, ice, seracs, rockfall and complex retreat can dominate. These are not directly interchangeable with the North Face commercial system, even though all contribute to the mountain’s broader fatality history.
- Higher technical commitment
- Rockfall and icefall exposure
- Fewer standardized support systems
- Harder retreat after route problems
Expedition Members and Hired Climbers Do Not Face the Mountain the Same Way
The current HDB member count is valuable, but it still combines people whose jobs and exposure patterns can differ substantially.
Summit-Bid Exposure
Members typically spend the expedition building acclimatization, moving through the high-camp system and concentrating their greatest altitude exposure around the summit cycle. Their risk is influenced by pace, oxygen strategy, turnaround, weather and how many times the route must be crossed before the final push.
Repeated Route-Preparation Exposure
High-altitude workers may carry oxygen, food, tents and ropes through threatened terrain more often than a client does. The 2025 HDB record is especially important because the fatal avalanche struck while hired climbers were ferrying oxygen cylinders—not during a summit push.
Annapurna’s Risk History Began Before Modern Expedition Systems Existed
Maurice Herzog and Louis Lachenal reached the summit on June 3, 1950, making Annapurna I the first 8,000-metre mountain ever climbed.
The 1950 expedition climbed steep snow and ice terrain cut by crevasses, icefalls and séracs before modern satellite forecasting, lightweight communications, fixed-rope systems, commercial high-altitude support or helicopter evacuation. The American Alpine Journal account of the first ascent describes the route between early camps as frequently swept by avalanches and heavily broken by icefalls.
That history matters when interpreting a cumulative mortality ratio. The database combines eras with radically different rescue capability, equipment and expedition systems. A modern climber does not step onto exactly the same support environment as a 1950 climber—but the mountain’s avalanche terrain and hanging ice remain part of the same physical objective.
Annapurna vs. Dhaulagiri, Everest & K2
Dhaulagiri I
13.03%Current HDB deaths/summits: 92 / 706. Deaths/members: 3.07%. Annapurna is only slightly higher at 13.46% / 3.64%, which makes Dhaulagiri the most revealing same-source comparator.
Everest
2.54%Everest has 344 recorded deaths in the current HDB report but 13,550 summits. The enormous summit denominator produces a much lower deaths/summits ratio despite a far larger absolute toll.
K2
9.54%K2’s separately compiled closed-through-2025 series is 92 deaths / 964 summits. K2 is the harder sustained technical climb in GSG’s model; Annapurna has the higher mortality ratio and stronger avalanche-hazard identity.
Why Annapurna Is Not Ranked the Hardest Eight-Thousander
Global Summit Guide’s difficulty model ranks Annapurna I second-hardest at 87.0 and K2 hardest at 94.5.
Maximum Objective Hazard
Annapurna receives 10/10 for objective hazard, 9/10 for technical difficulty, 9/10 for weather, 9/10 for remoteness and 9/10 for support gap. Its defining problem is avalanche and serac exposure that skill cannot fully control.
More Sustained Total Difficulty
K2 receives 10/10 for technical difficulty, objective hazard, weather and remoteness. The Abruzzi Spur requires sustained technical movement, extreme-altitude fixed-line climbing and a complex descent through the same terrain.
See all 14 eight-thousanders ranked by difficulty → Open K2 vs Annapurna →
Has Annapurna Become Safer?
The cumulative ratio has fallen and climbing systems have improved. The core objective hazards remain.
Forecasting, Equipment & Expedition Systems
Guinness notes a general decline in Himalayan death rates due to better forecasting, equipment, professional expedition support and helicopter rescue. Communications and shared route knowledge also improve decision-making.
Avalanche Terrain & Hanging Ice
A better forecast does not guarantee a stable slope. Better equipment does not prevent a serac from collapsing. The 2025 avalanche demonstrates why Annapurna’s defining hazard remains active in the modern expedition era.
Historical Severity Has Declined
The cumulative deaths/summits ratio is much lower than it was in 2018 and earlier eras. That is a meaningful statistical change when the source and denominator are stated.
Your Personal Probability
The ratio cannot account for your route, season, team, pace, oxygen use, experience, avalanche conditions, weather window or turnaround behavior. Personal expedition decisions require much more than a historical numerator and denominator.
Sources Used for the Annapurna Mortality Record
Himalayan Database — Most Dangerous Peaks
Current members, summits, deaths, deaths/summits and deaths/members for Annapurna I and other Nepal Himalayan peaks.
Open HDB report →Guinness — Deadliest Himalayan Mountain
Source for the 75 / 559 / 13.42% headline, the 5,900 m avalanche concentration and the 1991 deadliest-year statement.
Open Guinness →Guinness 2018 Record
Publishes the earlier 69 deaths / 261 ascents / 27.6% figure, showing how the cumulative ratio changed as summit volume expanded.
Open 2018 record →American Alpine Journal
The expedition account documents repeated avalanche destruction of camps and the September 19 six-person avalanche.
Open AAJ account →HDB Expedition ANN125104
Records the April 7, 2025 North Face avalanche, the two hired-climber deaths and the search response.
Open 2025 record →Annapurna I Climb Guide
Routes, altitude, expedition history and the mountain context that sits behind the mortality data.
Open Annapurna I →Routes, Difficulty, Comparisons & Weather
Death Rates by Mountain
Compare Annapurna with Dhaulagiri, Everest, K2 and other peaks while keeping denominator differences visible.
Compare mountain mortality →Difficulty & safetyAnnapurna Difficulty
Move from historical statistics into route demands, turnaround and expedition-level risk management.
Open difficulty guide →Route geographyAnnapurna Routes
Understand the North Face, Dutch Rib and other route systems without overloading the mortality page.
Open route guide →Route comparisonNorth Face vs Dutch Rib vs South Face
Compare the terrain systems behind Annapurna’s different climbing histories.
Compare routes →WeatherAnnapurna Weather & Seasons
Separate cumulative mortality data from current snow, wind and seasonal climbing conditions.
Open weather guide →Head-to-headK2 vs Annapurna
Why Annapurna has the higher current mortality ratio while K2 ranks harder overall.
Compare K2 and Annapurna →Annapurna Death Rate FAQ
What is the death rate on Annapurna I?
Guinness World Records publishes 75 deaths from 559 ascents, equal to 13.42%. The current Himalayan Database report shows 75 deaths from 557 summits, equal to 13.46%. The difference is two recorded ascents/summits, not a meaningful difference in the mountain’s mortality profile.
Why do some sources say Annapurna has a 32% death rate?
The roughly 27–32% figures belong to older cumulative periods with far fewer successful summits. Guinness published 69 deaths and 261 ascents, or 27.6%, in 2018. By the current HDB report the summit denominator has more than doubled.
Does 13.42% mean 13.42% of climbers who try Annapurna die?
No. The denominator is recorded successful ascents, not every attempted climb. It should be described as a death-to-ascent ratio, not an individual’s per-attempt probability.
Where do most deaths occur on Annapurna?
Guinness says the majority of deaths occur around an avalanche point near 5,900 m between Camp II at roughly 5,460 m and Camp III at roughly 6,400 m.
What was Annapurna’s deadliest year?
Guinness identifies 1991 with seven deaths. Six were killed in one avalanche on September 19.
Is Annapurna more dangerous than Dhaulagiri?
They are very close in the current HDB report. Annapurna is 13.46% deaths/summits and 3.64% deaths/members; Dhaulagiri I is 13.03% and 3.07%.
How does Annapurna compare with K2?
Annapurna’s current HDB deaths/summits ratio is 13.46%. Global Summit Guide’s separate closed-through-2025 K2 series is 9.54%. K2 is the harder sustained technical climb in GSG’s difficulty model, while Annapurna’s defining problem is objective avalanche and serac hazard.
Has Annapurna become safer?
Forecasting, equipment, professional expedition support and helicopter rescue have improved. The falling cumulative ratio is also driven by a much larger summit denominator. Annapurna’s avalanche terrain, hanging ice, altitude and high-mountain rescue limitations remain.
What happened on Annapurna in 2025?
The Himalayan Database records an April 7 avalanche from above Camp I around 5,600 m that caught three hired climbers. Ngima Tashi Sherpa and Rima Rinje Sherpa died/disappeared; another worker survived. Search teams used helicopters and Sherpas before the operation was suspended because further exposure was becoming too dangerous.
Annapurna’s Famous 32% Number Fell. Its Objective Hazard Did Not Disappear.
Use 13.42% when citing the current Guinness record. Use 13.46% when citing the live Himalayan Database deaths/summits report. Use 3.64% when the denominator is expedition members. Then return to the mountain itself: avalanche terrain, hanging ice, altitude and rescue limits are the reasons Annapurna remains one of mountaineering’s defining high-consequence objectives.
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.
- Visa, passport, vaccination, border, insurance, and local transportation rules may change before your trip.
- 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.