This page contains referral links. If you charter, buy, or sell through Burgess or Edmiston after a referral from this page we may earn a referral fee paid by the broker at no cost to you. We have not adjusted this comparison for the referral rate. Full breakdown on our how-we-make-money page.
Burgess and Edmiston are the two yacht brokerages that any 70m-plus owner or buyer should consider, full stop. Founded in 1975 and 1996 respectively, both run integrated charter, sales, management, and new-build advisory, both employ the deepest senior-broker teams in the market, and both reach the international buyer pool at a comparable level. They are also the two brokerages most likely to win the same listing. We rank Burgess at No. I on our best yacht sales brokers page and Edmiston at No. II, with a margin under one point on a 10-point editorial scoring. At the $20M-plus transaction level, both are credible. The decision between them is rarely about competence. It is about three specific cases that we name below.
This comparison is built on 18 months of source conversations with current and former brokers at both houses, owners under management on both sides, captains running yachts listed with each, and buyers who have considered both. It tracks the Burgess review and the Edmiston review and should be read alongside them.
The 30-second verdict
Pick Burgess if your transaction sits at 70m-plus on sales and the deal needs deep buyer-side advisory work, particularly the kind that runs through a new-build slot or an off-market 80m-plus sourcing. Pick Edmiston if your transaction is at the 50-to-80m central-listing band where pure marketing reach and a slightly more aggressive transaction tempo win, or if your charter brief is at the $200K-to-$500K weekly band and you want the broker to deliver on the lifestyle planning at the level Edmiston is known for. The third case, the close-call default, sits below.
The structural similarities
Both brokerages operate integrated services across charter, sales, management, and new-build. Both have offices in London, Monaco, and Miami at the senior level, with a second tier in New York, Athens, Palma de Mallorca, and (Burgess only) Singapore [VERIFY: current office lists for both]. Both publish the major industry data inputs that feed the trade press. Both close enough transactions per year at the upper LOAs to maintain genuine pricing data on 70m-plus inventory rather than estimating from the public record.
Both have run their reputations on roughly the same model. A specialist senior-broker team. A defended central-listing portfolio. A buyer-side advisory practice that operates with the captain and surveyor community rather than against it. A charter desk that handles the upper rate bands. A management portfolio in the $80M-to-$300M asset range. The result is two brokerages that look comparable from outside and that, in many transactions, are interchangeable.
The differences sit in the second decimal. We name them below.
Eight dimensions, side by side
| Dimension | Burgess | Edmiston |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1975, London | 1996, London |
| Offices, senior | London, Monaco, Miami, New York, Athens, Palma, Singapore [VERIFY] | London, Monaco, Miami, New York, Mexico City, Newport, Beverly Hills [VERIFY] |
| Sales focus band | 70m-plus primary, 50m-70m secondary | 50m-80m primary, 80m-plus competitive |
| Charter desk | $300K-plus weekly band, lifestyle planning credible | $200K-plus weekly band, lifestyle planning is best-in-market |
| Management portfolio | 50 to 70 yachts under management [VERIFY] | 30 to 45 yachts under management [VERIFY] |
| Off-market access | Strong at 80m-plus | Strong at 50m-80m |
| New-build advisory | Lürssen, Feadship, Oceanco, Abeking & Rasmussen broker-of-record relationships | Lürssen, Feadship, Benetti, Heesen broker-of-record relationships |
| Marketing depth | Top tier, traditional | Top tier, slightly more aggressive on press placement |
The dimensions where the brokerages are tied (offices, marketing depth, integrated services) are not the decision variables. The dimensions where they differ (focus band, management volume, off-market access by LOA) are. We work through them next.
Where Burgess wins
Burgess is the broker we recommend on three specific kinds of transactions.
The first is the 80m-plus sales transaction with a buyer-side advisory requirement. A buyer commissioning an 85m yacht purchase, particularly where the central listing options are limited and the deal will route through an off-market sourcing or a partial-builder negotiation, will find Burgess's senior team more depth-equipped than Edmiston's. The reason is the captain-and-surveyor-side career provenance of several of Burgess's senior brokers, which Edmiston has on its team in fewer numbers. The advisory work runs through the buyer's surveyor, the buyer's flag-state consultant, the buyer's tax advisor, and the buyer's eventual captain candidate. Burgess routes that ecosystem in a way that Edmiston's team can match but does not lead on.
The second is the central-listing on a 70m-plus yacht where the seller is willing to spend 6 to 9 months on the listing rather than aiming for a 90-day close. Burgess's marketing depth on traditional channels (print, industry events, the broker-network back channel) is calibrated to a slightly longer listing cycle, and the brokerage's international buyer-pool reach is structurally better suited to finding the one or two qualified 80m-plus buyers globally rather than running a wider 50m-band auction.
The third is the new-build slot acquisition or resale where the slot is at Lürssen, Feadship, or Oceanco. Burgess's broker-of-record relationships with those three yards run deep enough that the brokerage will know the slot availability, the price discipline, and the construction-stage commercial flexibility better than Edmiston, which has comparable Lürssen and Feadship relationships but slightly thinner Oceanco depth.
Where Edmiston wins
Edmiston is the broker we recommend on three specific kinds of transactions.
The first is the 50-to-80m central-listing where the seller wants the listing closed in 4 to 9 months. Edmiston's tempo on the 50-to-80m band is genuinely faster than Burgess's, and the asking-to-selling price gap on Edmiston listings in that band is narrower than on Burgess listings in the same band. The reason is the senior-team attention allocation: Edmiston runs the 50-to-80m band as a primary segment, where Burgess runs it as a secondary. A seller in this band buying senior-team attention is buying it more reliably with Edmiston.
The second is the charter booking at the $200K-to-$500K weekly band where the lifestyle planning is a meaningful part of the value. Edmiston's charter management team has a slightly stronger lifestyle and shoreside planning operation than Burgess's, particularly in the Mediterranean restaurant-and-villa coordination work where the team has been embedded for two decades. A charter client wanting a French Riviera booking with detailed shoreside coordination should put Edmiston first. We say so on our best charter brokers page.
The third is the buyer who wants the press placement on the transaction. Edmiston is structurally more aggressive on trade-press placement of closed transactions than Burgess. For a buyer with a private-office press team and a brand-visibility objective on the close, Edmiston will route the press through Boat International, SuperYacht Times, and the consumer-press yacht columns at a slightly faster cadence than Burgess. Many buyers do not want this. Some do. For the ones who do, Edmiston wins.
Where it is too close to call
On the 60-to-75m sales transaction with no specific edge case, the two brokerages are interchangeable. We have seen the same yacht listed central with each in the past five years, the same off-market buyers reached by each, and the same surveyor pool engaged by each on diligence. The eventual close on a yacht of this kind will depend on the specific broker on each side rather than the brokerage's brand.
On the $300K-plus weekly charter booking in the Mediterranean or Caribbean where the lifestyle planning is not the load-bearing variable, the two are similarly interchangeable. The charter desks are roughly equivalent, the captain-and-crew vetting is comparable, and the yacht-shortlist quality is the same. The decision comes down to which senior broker the client clicks with on the first call.
On the management portfolio question for a $30M-plus owner looking for full management, both will do the work credibly. Burgess's larger portfolio gives it slightly more bench depth on technical management; Edmiston's smaller portfolio gives it slightly more attention per yacht. Either is a defensible choice.
What we would change about both
This is the section a marketing-led broker comparison would skip. We do not.
Burgess we would change on pricing transparency on the front end of charter inquiries. The brokerage will not typically share comparables on charter rates in a structured way and a client who wants to understand the rate context needs to push. Most do not push. Edmiston is slightly better on this dimension but not best-in-class either; the broker we recommend on front-end pricing transparency for charter is Camper & Nicholsons, where the comparables are routinely volunteered.
Edmiston we would change on the volume of weeks pushed in the high season. The desk's calendar at peak weeks (mid-July to mid-August, Mediterranean) is full enough that the lifestyle-planning quality, which is the differentiator, gets stretched. A client booking the same yacht through Edmiston in the second week of July versus the third week of September will get two different operating experiences on the planning side. The two-week peak window is the weakest part of the Edmiston product, and it is worth knowing about before the booking.
Both we would change on the asking-to-selling price gap disclosure. Neither will routinely share the closed-transaction comparables on a target purchase. Both will give qualitative commentary. Neither will hand the buyer a list. This is a brokerage-industry norm, not a Burgess-or-Edmiston-specific failure, but it is the largest unaddressed transparency gap at the upper LOAs.
The close-call default
For a reader who has narrowed the choice to these two and cannot decide on the edge-case framework above, the close-call default is Burgess on sales transactions at 70m-plus, Edmiston on charter at $200K-plus weekly, and an even split on management and new-build. That is the simplest decision rule we can give, and it tracks the rankings on our best yacht sales brokers and best charter brokers pages.
The deeper rule is to run both for a first call. Both will respond within 48 hours to a serious inquiry. The first call costs the buyer nothing and gives the buyer two parallel reads on the same brief. The right broker becomes obvious by the third call. A buyer who is genuinely unable to choose after the third call should default to Burgess on sales and Edmiston on charter.
How to inquire
Burgess: the /brokers/burgess-review/ page carries the referral inquiry form for sales, charter, and management.
Edmiston: the /brokers/edmiston-review/ page carries the same.
Both forms route to the senior team. We do not handle the inquiry on our side beyond the referral. The broker engages the client directly.