Last updated September 21, 2026
Mountain Summit Success Rates: 24 Peaks Compared Without Mixing the Denominators
A mountain’s “success rate” is only useful when you know who is being counted. Registered climbers, expedition members, permit holders, successful expeditions and one guide company’s clients are not interchangeable populations. This guide compares 24 major mountains while showing the source and denominator behind each number—and refusing to invent a universal percentage where reliable mountain-wide data does not exist.
There is no honest global ranking from 1 to 24 using one universal success-rate definition.
Some mountains have excellent public outcome data. Denali’s National Park Service records registered climbers and summits. The Himalayan Database provides member and summit records for the peaks in its geographic coverage. Mendoza publishes Aconcagua season results.
Other mountains rely mostly on guide-company client statistics, estimates, historical studies or incomplete records. Putting all of those percentages into one ordered table creates false precision.
So this page does something more useful: it shows a headline result only when the denominator is identifiable, then assigns each mountain a source class. That lets you compare like with like instead of assuming “65% on one mountain” means the same thing as “65% on another.”
Member records and summit records through 2025.
976 registered climbers and 582 summits in preliminary 2026 data.
Mendoza reports more than 35% summited during 2024–25.
Never compare percentages until population and period match.
Three source classes keep unlike percentages separate
A lower-confidence figure can still help with planning. It simply should not be displayed as if it had the same statistical foundation as a public government or climbing database.
Primary public denominator
The source publishes both successful outcomes and the population being measured, or directly publishes the calculated rate.
Examples: Himalayan Database, Denali NPS, Mendoza seasonal Aconcagua reporting.
Useful but limited public record
Strong historical or official data exists, but the current mountain-wide denominator is missing, discontinued or not updated consistently.
Example: Mount Rainier, where NPS stopped publishing successful-climber totals in the annual table after 2018.
No single audited mountain-wide rate
Available percentages come mainly from individual operators, selected programs, estimates, research cohorts or incompatible source systems.
Examples: Kilimanjaro, Mont Blanc, Matterhorn, Vinson and several commercial expedition peaks.
Eight major 8,000ers we can compare directly
These figures come from the same current Himalayan Database table and use summit records divided by member records. That makes this the cleanest comparison on the page.
| Peak | Member records | Summit records | HDB summit rate | Deaths | HDB death rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everest | 26,316 | 13,550 | 51.5% | 344 | 1.31% |
| Manaslu | 7,085 | 3,238 | 45.7% | 90 | 1.27% |
| Cho Oyu | 9,208 | 4,056 | 44.0% | 52 | 0.56% |
| Lhotse | 3,477 | 1,465 | 42.1% | 25 | 0.72% |
| Kangchenjunga | 1,749 | 682 | 39.0% | 54 | 3.09% |
| Makalu | 2,898 | 886 | 30.6% | 51 | 1.76% |
| Annapurna I | 2,059 | 557 | 27.1% | 75 | 3.64% |
| Dhaulagiri I | 2,999 | 706 | 23.5% | 92 | 3.07% |
Open the dedicated Annapurna summit-success analysis for a deeper explanation of why deaths per members, deaths per summits and summit rate require separate denominators.
24 major mountains: rate, denominator and evidence status
“Not published here” is intentional. It is more useful than putting a precise-looking estimate into a table that readers assume is audited.
| Mountain | Current useful figure | Denominator / cohort | Source class | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everest | 51.5% | 13,550 summit records / 26,316 member records | A | Historical HDB member rate through 2025. |
| Manaslu | 45.7% | 3,238 / 7,085 member records | A | Directly comparable with other HDB peaks in this table. |
| Cho Oyu | 44.0% | 4,056 / 9,208 member records | A | Historical rate includes changing access and permit eras. |
| Lhotse | 42.1% | 1,465 / 3,477 member records | A | HDB member-record rate through 2025. |
| Kangchenjunga | 39.0% | 682 / 1,749 member records | A | Comparable within the same HDB population. |
| Makalu | 30.6% | 886 / 2,898 member records | A | Historical member rate, not a future personal probability. |
| Annapurna I | 27.1% | 557 / 2,059 member records | A | Do not confuse with its 13.46% deaths-to-summits ratio. |
| Dhaulagiri I | 23.5% | 706 / 2,999 member records | A | Lowest summit rate among these eight principal HDB peaks. |
| Denali | 59.6% raw / 60% NPS rounded | 582 summits / 976 registered climbers, 2026 preliminary | A | Current single-season result; not comparable to an all-history HDB rate. |
| Aconcagua | More than 35% | Mountaineers in official 2024–25 season reporting | A | Current seasonal result from Mendoza; do not replace with an invented 39% permanent rate. |
| Mount Rainier | Historic official series available | NPS climbers + successful climbers through 2018 | B | NPS stopped publishing successful-climber totals in the annual table after 2018. |
| Kilimanjaro | No single audited mountain-wide rate | Operator programs use different routes, days and client cohorts | C | Compare operator claims only when route, days, years and client count are disclosed. |
| Vinson Massif | No universal public mountain-wide rate used here | Operator / expedition client cohorts | C | ALE/operator outcomes are useful but should not become an unsupported “95% mountain rate.” |
| Mount Elbrus | No current auditable global denominator | Operator and program records | C | Do not present one permanent 72% rate without source population and dates. |
| Island Peak | No single audited mountain-wide rate | Agency/operator cohorts | C | Itinerary length and whether EBC acclimatization is included change the cohort substantially. |
| Mera Peak | No single audited mountain-wide rate | Agency/operator cohorts | C | Use published operator rates as company-program evidence, not national statistics. |
| Carstensz Pyramid | No stable mountain-wide percentage | Operator clients + access cancellations | C | Permit and helicopter access can prevent an expedition before climbing begins. |
| Mont Blanc | No single audited mountain-wide rate | Guide clients, independent climbers and route-specific populations | C | Guide-company success should not be presented as a Mont Blanc-wide rate. |
| Matterhorn | No single audited mountain-wide rate | Guide / hut / route cohorts | C | Weather, guide screening and route experience heavily select who starts. |
| Pico de Orizaba | No audited mountain-wide rate used here | Guide/operator estimates | C | Glacier condition and acclimatization make one permanent percentage especially weak. |
| Mount Shasta | No centralized current summit database | Route use, permits and guide/operator observations | C | Season and snow conditions dominate year-to-year outcomes. |
| Chimborazo | No single auditable mountain-wide percentage | Guide/operator cohorts | C | Use an operator rate only for the itinerary and cohort it actually represents. |
| K2 | No HDB-equivalent percentage used in this master table | Separate Pakistan/Karakoram source system required | C | Do not compare a K2 estimate directly with HDB Nepal-Himalaya rates. |
| Nanga Parbat | No HDB-equivalent percentage used in this master table | Separate Pakistan source system required | C | Needs a source-specific denominator rather than a recycled “16%” internet figure. |
Denali shows why the year matters
The mountain did not suddenly become easier between 2025 and 2026. The annual weather outcome changed.
976 climbers
NPS reported 976 registered Denali climbers in its July season wrap-up.
582 summits
The raw counts produce a 59.6% summit rate.
60% rounded
NPS rounded its preliminary 2026 result to 60%.
36%
The final 2025 annual summary was dramatically lower, illustrating Denali’s seasonal volatility.
See the complete Denali Summit Success Rate analysis for annual NPS data and the long-term weighted baseline.
Aconcagua has a current season result. Rainier shows a discontinued denominator.
Both are good sources. They simply answer different questions.
More than 35% in 2024–25
Mendoza’s official season report says more than 35% of mountaineers reached the summit during the 2024–25 season and records 3,449 mountaineering ascents.
That is a real current authority statement. It is stronger than recycling a permanent 39% headline or inventing guided/independent sub-rates without exposing the source population.
Excellent history, no current success count
Mount Rainier National Park publishes an extensive annual table of climbers and successful climbers. However, the NPS table marks successful-climber totals as unavailable beginning in 2019.
That means a current “Rainier is 54%” headline cannot be presented as a current NPS mountain-wide statistic.
Do not fill missing cells with confidence
When an authority stops collecting a field, a guide-company estimate may still be useful. But it must be labeled as guide-company data rather than silently substituted into the government series.
The closer you look at the cohort, the less useful one universal number becomes.
The same mountain can produce different results by year, route, itinerary, operator and climber population. That does not make summit statistics useless. It means the denominator is part of the statistic.
Four factors matter—but we do not assign a universal percentage to them
The old version claimed these variables could double your odds. That is too broad. Their effect depends on the mountain and the dataset.
Weather window
Annual results can swing sharply when a mountain gets fewer usable summit days. Denali’s recent seasons are a clear official-data example.
Route difficulty
A standard route and a technical line may belong to completely different populations. Compare route rates only when both route denominators are published.
Time and acclimatization
Extra days can create more recovery and weather flexibility, but the magnitude of the effect cannot be assumed identical across Kilimanjaro, Aconcagua, Denali and Everest.
Experience and support
Guide screening, prior altitude experience and operator systems can matter. Publish a numerical effect only when a transparent cohort supports it.
A summit rate can change even when the mountain does not
Treat dates and periods as part of every percentage.
36% → ~60%
Final 2025 to preliminary 2026. A reminder that one year should not become a permanent mountain rate.
Historical cumulative dataset
The current HDB 51.5% is an all-record member rate through 2025, not the percentage for one spring season.
Season reporting
The 2024–25 Mendoza report says more than 35% reached the summit. A future season may differ.
Collection method changed
Sometimes the dataset changes because the authority stops collecting a field—not because the mountain changes.
Use success data as a question generator, not an odds calculator
The number becomes valuable when it helps you identify what to investigate next.
What population produced the number?
All registered climbers? Expedition members? One operator’s clients? Expeditions rather than individuals?
What period does it represent?
A single season, five-year average, modern era or all recorded climbing history?
Does it match your route?
A technical route should not inherit the headline rate of a heavily supported standard route.
What is missing?
If weather holds, cancellations or climbers who never reached Base Camp are excluded, the published rate may rise.
Use the dedicated success-rate pages for the full denominator
The hub tells you whether two numbers are comparable. The child pages explain the individual dataset.
Denali
2026 preliminary counts, annual trends and weighted modern baseline.
Open Denali success data →Annapurna I
27.1% member summit rate and explicit mortality-denominator definitions.
Open Annapurna data →Everest
Separate historical Himalayan Database outcomes from modern operator cohorts.
Open Everest data →K2
Use K2-specific source definitions rather than importing the Nepal-Himalaya denominator.
Open K2 data →Kilimanjaro
Why operator-reported route rates should not become one audited mountain-wide rate.
Open Kilimanjaro data →Denali historical series
The strongest example on the site of year-to-year summit-rate volatility.
See annual results →Matterhorn
Technical route, guide screening and weather make cohort definition especially important.
Open Matterhorn data →Nanga Parbat
A separate data system is required before comparing its percentage directly with HDB peaks.
Open Nanga Parbat data →Mountain summit success rates: the questions that matter
The answer is often not another percentage. It is a better denominator.
What is a mountain summit success rate?
It is the number of successful summit outcomes divided by a defined population. Depending on the source, that population might be registered climbers, expedition members, permit holders, expeditions or operator clients. Always identify that denominator before comparing mountains.
Which mountain has the highest summit success rate?
There is no defensible universal answer across all major commercial mountains because the available datasets are not standardized. A guide company’s Vinson client rate and the Himalayan Database’s Everest member rate measure different populations.
Which 8,000-meter peak has the highest rate in the current Himalayan Database table?
Among the principal peaks shown here, Everest is highest at 51.5%, followed by Manaslu at 45.7%, Cho Oyu at 44.0% and Lhotse at 42.1%. These are summit records divided by member records through 2025.
What is Everest’s summit success rate?
The current Himalayan Database lists 13,550 Everest summit records and 26,316 member records, producing a historical member summit rate of 51.5%. That is not the same thing as the rate for one modern commercial operator or one spring season.
What is Annapurna I’s summit success rate?
The current Himalayan Database lists 557 summit records and 2,059 member records for Annapurna I, producing a 27.1% member summit rate. Its deaths-per-summits and deaths-per-members percentages answer different questions.
What is Denali’s summit success rate?
For 2026, the preliminary NPS counts were 582 summits from 976 registered climbers. That equals 59.6%; NPS rounded the figure to 60%. The final 2025 rate was only 36%, demonstrating why Denali should not be assigned one permanent percentage.
What is K2’s summit success rate?
K2 requires a separate Pakistan/Karakoram data source. It is not part of the Himalayan Database table used here for Everest, Annapurna, Manaslu and other Nepal-Himalaya peaks. A K2 percentage should therefore state its own source, dates and denominator rather than being inserted into that ranking.
Does hiring a guide increase summit success?
It can, but there is no universal percentage improvement. Guides may improve route selection, pacing, logistics, weather decisions and turnaround discipline, while guide companies also screen and self-select clients differently. Compare guided and independent rates only when both populations are published from the same source.
Can I use summit rates to estimate my own probability?
Not reliably. Historical datasets describe groups, not individuals. Your route, acclimatization, expedition length, conditions, health, experience and decision-making can differ substantially from the population that produced the historical number.
Every headline rate should point back to the people who counted it
This hub prioritizes public climbing databases and government authorities over recycled mountain-guide percentages.
- Himalayan Database — 8,000 m Peak Comparison — expeditions, members, summits, deaths, summit rates and member death rates through 2025.
- Himalayan Database — Database Summary — scope, period, expedition totals, member records and summit records.
- National Park Service — Denali 2026 Season Wrap-Up — 976 registered climbers, 582 summits and NPS’s rounded 60% preliminary result.
- National Park Service — Denali Annual Mountaineering Summaries — yearly mountaineering statistics and historical reporting.
- Government of Mendoza — Aconcagua 2024–25 Season — official report stating that more than 35% of mountaineers reached the summit.
- National Park Service — Mount Rainier Annual Climbing Statistics — historical climber and successful-climber counts; successful totals no longer shown after 2018.
Success rate is one layer of the mountain decision
Use outcome data alongside difficulty, mortality, route exposure and your own readiness rather than treating one historical percentage as a prediction.
Explore Summit Odds, Risk and Mountaineering Outcomes
Summit success rates show how often climbers reach the top. Put those odds beside fatality data, historical trends and major mountaineering disasters to understand the full picture of expedition risk and outcome.
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.
- Permit availability, reservation windows, quotas, and official fee rules may change after this page is updated.
- Guide-company prices, departure dates, guide ratios, included services, and cancellation rules can change without notice.
- Weather, snowpack, avalanche risk, road access, and route conditions can change quickly and may be different on your climbing dates.
- Fitness and altitude response vary by person; no guide, itinerary, or training plan can guarantee acclimatization or summit success.
- Comparisons simplify complex decisions; the better mountain depends on current conditions, skills, timing, budget, and risk tolerance.
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.
Explore Travel Options for Your Destination
Once your mountain, dates and route are taking shape, compare flights, hotels and other travel options that fit the trip.
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.