Quick take
- Kilimanjaro is a non-technical trek for many routes, but altitude can still be the deciding factor.
- Aconcagua is higher and often more demanding due to altitude, weather, and longer expedition-style logistics.
- For both, longer itineraries generally improve acclimatisation outcomes compared to very short schedules.
Side-by-side comparison
| Factor | Kilimanjaro | Aconcagua |
|---|---|---|
| Trip style | Guided trek (park regulations typically require guides) | Expedition-style ascent with camps and acclimatisation rotations |
| Altitude challenge | High altitude in a short time; itinerary choice matters a lot | Higher altitude; often longer acclimatisation and bigger weather exposure |
| Time required | Varies by route; longer is usually better for acclimatisation | Typically longer expedition schedules; compare itinerary structure |
| Cost drivers | Park fees, route length, group size, comfort level | Permits, expedition logistics, camps, porter/mule support, extra days |
Altitude & acclimatisation
The biggest determinant for both mountains is often how well you acclimatise. In general, itineraries with sensible pacing and buffer days reduce risk compared to very compressed schedules.
When comparing companies, check itinerary structure, rest days, and what happens if someone needs extra time.
What drives the cost differences?
- Inclusions: permits/fees, transfers, accommodation, meals, porter support.
- Group size and ratios: private vs group, guide/porter allocation.
- Duration: longer itineraries generally cost more, but may improve acclimatisation outcomes.
- Logistics style: comfort level, camp services, contingency days.
For apples-to-apples comparisons, read: How expedition pricing works.
Compare companies
Related:
Choosing an expedition company ·
Guided vs Unguided