This page contains referral links. If you commission a build, charter, or purchase via the brokers and advisors named 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.
Feadship and Oceanco are the two Dutch shipyards an owner commissioning an $80M to $200M build will be told to consider, and in most cases there is no third Dutch option at this level. Both have built reference yachts in the 80m to 110m band. Both deliver three to six yachts a year. Both run vertically integrated engineering, naval architecture, and project management at a depth few other yards match. We rank Feadship at No. I and Oceanco at No. IV on our best shipyards page, with Lurssen second and Abeking & Rasmussen third. The gap between them is wider than the gap between Feadship and Lurssen and the reasons are structural, not seasonal.
This page sits behind the Feadship review and the Oceanco review. Both should be read alongside this comparison. The most common framing in 2026 is that Feadship is the conservative incumbent and Oceanco is the ambitious challenger. That framing is partly right and partly the marketing each yard would like you to repeat. We name the four cases where the decision is actually clear and the contested band where it is not.
The 30-second verdict
Pick Feadship for builds at 60m to 90m, particularly where the design language is led by a long-tenure Dutch or British studio (De Voogt, RWD, Bannenberg & Rowell) and the project is judged on finish quality, resale value, and project predictability across a 36-to-48-month window. Pick Oceanco for builds at 90m to 110m, particularly where the project carries a design-led ambition (a Lobanov, Igor Lobanov, Nuvolari Lenard, or in-house Oceanco Lifestyle interior), a hybrid or alternative-propulsion specification, or a heli-hangar and submarine garage technical brief that the project schedule can absorb over 48 to 66 months. The 80m to 100m contested band is the close-call zone and the four edge cases below decide it.
The structural similarities
Both yards are based in the Netherlands and both deliver yachts at the upper end of the global build market. Both run engineering departments of 200 to 400 people [VERIFY: current Oceanco engineering headcount]. Both have invested in build halls that handle yachts up to 130m LOA. Both have order books deep enough to require slot acquisition 18 to 36 months in advance.
Both yards are at parity on hull engineering, paint, and the structural build-quality variables that the rest of the market uses as the reference standard. A 90m Feadship and a 90m Oceanco from the same year, both delivered with a complete refit cycle through the 10-year survey, will hold value at the top decile of the secondary market. The build-quality conversation between the two yards is, in 2026, a tie.
The differences sit in design culture, project tempo, financial structure, and what each yard will and will not say yes to. We work through them next.
Nine dimensions, side by side
| Dimension | Feadship | Oceanco |
|---|---|---|
| Country | Netherlands (Amsterdam, Aalsmeer, Makkum) | Netherlands (Alblasserdam) |
| Founded | 1949 (consortium of Royal Van Lent and De Vries) | 1987 |
| Ownership | Two-family consortium, private | Privately owned, Mohammed Al Barwani Holding [VERIFY: current owner] |
| Sweet-spot LOA | 50m to 100m | 80m to 130m |
| Largest delivered | 102m (Symphony, 2015) [VERIFY: current largest] | 109m (Black Pearl, 2018) [VERIFY: current largest] |
| Annual deliveries | 4 to 8 yachts | 3 to 5 yachts |
| Design culture | Dutch refinement, conservative on exterior risk | Design-led ambition, willing to take exterior risk |
| Alternative propulsion | Strong, methanol fuel-cell work | Strong, hybrid diesel-electric and DynaRig sail |
| Resale premium vs replacement at 5 to 10 years | 75 to 90 percent | 65 to 80 percent |
The two dimensions that decide most reader decisions on this page are design culture and resale premium. We explain both below.
Where Feadship wins
Feadship is the yard we recommend on four specific kinds of commissions.
The first is the 60m to 90m build where finish quality and resale value are the load-bearing variables. Feadship's interior craftsmanship and paint discipline produce a yacht that holds 75 to 90 percent of replacement cost at the 5-to-10-year mark. Oceanco at the same age and condition runs 10 to 15 percent behind on the same metric. The reason is partly brand premium and partly the secondary market's read on Feadship's interior quality as more consistent across builds. For an owner who plans to sell at the 7-year mark, the resale gap can offset a meaningful portion of the build premium.
The second is the project that requires schedule predictability. Feadship's project management on the 60m to 90m range runs closer to schedule than Oceanco's on the 90m to 110m range, partly because the shorter project simply has fewer moving parts and partly because Feadship's two-yard consortium structure (Royal Van Lent in Aalsmeer and Kaag, De Vries in Makkum, with the new Amsterdam facility absorbing larger builds) gives the project manager more flexibility to move work between halls. Oceanco's single-site model at Alblasserdam is leaner and more elegant, but it has less internal slack.
The third is the build where the design language is led by a long-tenure Dutch or British studio. RWD, Bannenberg & Rowell, Studio De Voogt, and Sinot have all delivered through Feadship at a cadence that gives the studio team and the yard's engineering team a working rhythm. The same studios will work with Oceanco, but the working rhythm is less established. For an owner who wants the design studio to set the tone and the yard to execute, Feadship's studio relationships are the deeper bench.
The fourth is the central-listing resale at the 70m to 90m band 5 to 10 years post-build. Feadship-built yachts at this size and age move faster on the central-listing market and at narrower asking-to-selling gaps than Oceanco builds of comparable specification. The reason is the size of the qualified buyer pool, which is structurally deeper for the Feadship name at this LOA.
Where Oceanco wins
Oceanco is the yard we recommend on four specific kinds of commissions.
The first is the 95m to 110m build where the project has design-led ambition and the owner wants the exterior to carry visible signature. Oceanco has delivered the most distinctive 100m-plus exterior portfolio in the market over the last decade. Black Pearl (DynaRig, 106.7m, 2018), Jubilee (110.1m, 2017), and Bravo Eugenia (109m, 2019) sit at a design ambition level Feadship has not matched at the same LOA. An owner commissioning a 100m yacht who wants the exterior to be recognizable from one nautical mile away should put Oceanco first.
The second is the build with a heli-hangar, submarine garage, or other technical-spec ambition that the project schedule can absorb. Oceanco's 100m-plus build platform is designed around the assumption that the technical brief will include features the rest of the industry does not routinely deliver. The yard's project management is calibrated for that complexity in a way that Feadship's, which is more comfortable on the conservative end of the technical-spec range, is not.
The third is the alternative-propulsion or sail-assisted build. Oceanco's work on Black Pearl proved the yard's appetite for non-standard propulsion and its capacity to deliver a 100m sail-assisted hybrid without the schedule slipping into the catastrophic range. Feadship has done credible methanol fuel-cell work but has not delivered a 100m-plus sail-assisted hybrid. For an owner whose specification is genuinely unusual, Oceanco's reference cases are deeper.
The fourth is the buyer who wants the press placement on launch. Oceanco-delivered yachts get more trade-press coverage on launch than Feadship-delivered yachts of comparable LOA, partly because the designs are more newsworthy and partly because the yard runs a slightly more aggressive press operation. For a buyer who plans to charter the yacht commercially, the launch press matters for the first 18 months of the charter calendar.
Where it is too close to call
On the 90m to 100m build with a conservative design language and a 48-month schedule, the two yards are interchangeable. Both will produce a yacht at parity on build quality, both will deliver within 4 to 8 weeks of the original schedule, and both will hand the owner a yacht that holds 75 percent of replacement cost at the 10-year mark. The decision in this band comes down to which project manager the owner clicks with on the first commissioning meeting and which yard has a slot that aligns with the desired delivery quarter.
On the 80m to 90m build with a design-forward exterior brief, the decision is closer than the conventional framing would suggest. Oceanco can absolutely deliver at the 80m to 90m level, even though the yard's sweet spot is higher, and Feadship can absolutely deliver a design-forward exterior, even though the yard's sweet spot is more conservative. The decision in this band depends on the specific design studio, the slot availability, and the owner's risk appetite on the exterior brief.
Three myths to ignore
"Feadship is the better build, full stop." No. Build quality between the two yards is at parity on hull, paint, engineering, and finish. The resale premium gap is real, but it tracks brand pull-through and secondary-market depth, not absolute build quality. Anyone selling you a Feadship over an Oceanco on absolute build quality is either repeating Feadship marketing or has not delivered a recent Oceanco hull.
"Oceanco is cheaper than Feadship." Mostly no. Oceanco's gross price at the 90m-plus level is within 5 to 10 percent of Feadship's on a comparable specification. The total-cost-of-ownership gap, which includes the resale premium gap above, can run wider, but the gross build price is similar. An owner shopping these two on build price alone is misreading the decision.
"Oceanco is the riskier yard." No, on absolute risk. Both yards have the financial structure to deliver a $150M build without project failure. Oceanco carries marginally more design execution risk because the yard is more willing to take exterior risk on the project brief. That is a feature for some owners and a bug for others. It is not a yard-stability question.
What we would change about both
Feadship we would change on engagement with the resale market at the 5-to-10-year point. The yard does not routinely engage with secondary-market refits or with the broker community that handles the resale, which leaves owners on their own when the listing window arrives. Oceanco has built a slightly stronger refit and aftercare practice at Alblasserdam, partly because the smaller annual delivery count means there is bench capacity for the work.
Oceanco we would change on the project-tempo risk on the 100m-plus build. The yard has slipped delivery dates on multiple 100m-plus builds by 4 to 9 months in the last six years [VERIFY: specific delivery slips by build name and year]. The slips have not been catastrophic and the eventual delivery quality has been at the reference standard, but a 9-month slip on a $150M build carries meaningful financing and crew-acquisition cost. Owners contracting Oceanco at the 100m-plus level should plan for the slip and build the contractual structure to absorb it.
Both yards we would change on transparency at the slot-acquisition stage. Neither will routinely share the order book or the slot pricing context with a first-time owner. A buyer's broker who has run multiple builds at the yard will have the context, and an owner should not engage either yard on a build without that broker in the room. The yard will not volunteer the comparables.
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 Feadship at 60m to 90m and Oceanco at 100m-plus. In the 90m to 100m contested band, default to Feadship on a conservative design brief and Oceanco on a design-forward brief. That decision rule tracks the rankings on our best shipyards page and the recommendations our editorial team would give in a buyer's broker meeting.
The deeper rule is to bring a buyer's broker who has run a recent build at both yards. The broker's context on the current order book, the current paint and joinery teams at each yard, and the current project management bench will decide more than the yard-brand framework above. A reader who does not have that broker yet should start with the Feadship review and the Oceanco review, then route through a brokerage on our best yacht sales brokers page for the build advisory.
How to inquire
Both yards work primarily through buyer's brokers on new commissions. Direct inquiries from new owners are accepted at both, but the yard will route the inquiry through a broker either way. The faster path is to engage the broker first.
Burgess, Edmiston, and Camper & Nicholsons all have broker-of-record relationships with Feadship. Burgess and Edmiston both have working relationships with Oceanco at the senior level. The Burgess review and Edmiston review pages carry the referral inquiry forms.