Compare Destinations

The two most popular aurora destinations — Iceland's volcanic landscapes versus Norway's Arctic coast. Which is right for you?

→ Norway wins on aurora reliability; Iceland wins on accessibility from USA and unique landscape diversity.

Two of Europe's top aurora destinations compared — Iceland's dramatic volcanic landscapes against Finland's serene Lapland wilderness and glass igloos.

→ Finland offers higher aurora success rates thanks to clearer skies in Lapland.

Comparing Scandinavia's two aurora powerhouses — Norway's fjord-side displays versus Finland's forest-backed lights and unique accommodation.

→ Norway (especially Tromsø) has a slight edge in aurora score and coastal scenery.

Iceland's accessible aurora scene compared to Sweden's Abisko — statistically one of the best aurora viewing spots on Earth.

→ Abisko has the highest clear-sky success rate in Scandinavia thanks to its unique microclimate.

North America's aurora capital Fairbanks versus Europe's most popular aurora destination. Two very different experiences.

→ Fairbanks has better aurora statistics (higher latitude, more clear nights) but Iceland is easier to reach from Europe and offers more diverse daytime activities.

The top aurora destinations on each side of the Atlantic — Fairbanks' dark interior skies versus Tromsø's fjord-side magic.

→ Both score 9/10 for aurora.

Tromsø's coastal aurora experience compared to Abisko's legendary clear skies — two Scandinavian neighbours, two very different vibes.

→ Abisko has statistically more clear nights.

Finnish Lapland's family-friendly aurora capital versus Swedish Lapland's adventure hub near the ICEHOTEL and Abisko.

→ Rovaniemi is more family-oriented (Santa Claus Village, glass igloos).

Yellowknife's aurora oval location versus Iceland's volcanic aurora playground — North America vs Europe's best.

→ Yellowknife sits directly under the auroral oval with exceptional clear-sky rates.

Norway's Arctic capital versus Finland's Santa Claus hometown — both iconic aurora destinations but very different in character.

→ Tromsø wins for aurora reliability and activities; Rovaniemi wins for unique atmosphere and glass igloos.

Norway's most popular aurora city versus Sweden's scientifically proven clearest-sky location. A classic debate among aurora chasers.

→ Abisko wins on clear sky statistics; Tromsø wins on activities, accommodation choice, and overall experience.

North America's two premier aurora destinations — Canada's Aurora Capital versus Alaska's interior powerhouse.

→ Both are excellent; Yellowknife wins slightly on aurora statistics, Fairbanks wins on hot springs and Japanese visitor infrastructure.

The ultimate Arctic upgrade — is Svalbard worth the extra cost and effort versus the more accessible Tromsø?

→ Svalbard wins on aurora intensity and Arctic wilderness; Tromsø wins on value, activities, and overall accessibility.

Finland's two most popular Lapland destinations — the Arctic Circle city with Santa Claus versus the premier ski resort.

→ Rovaniemi wins for glass igloos and family Christmas magic; Levi wins for skiers and winter sports enthusiasts.

Is it worth crossing the Drake Passage to reach Antarctica, or is Ushuaia alone enough of an adventure?

→ If budget allows, Antarctica is a transformative experience impossible to replicate elsewhere; Ushuaia is a destination in itself for Patagonia lovers.

Sweden's Arctic hub city versus the world's clearest aurora viewing location — both in Swedish Lapland, just 90 minutes apart.

→ Abisko wins on aurora purity; Kiruna wins as a base with airport access, the Icehotel, and broader infrastructure.

Alta claims 'Aurora Capital of Norway' status while Tromsø gets the tourist footfall — which delivers the better experience?

→ Alta wins on clear skies and aurora statistics; Tromsø wins on infrastructure, activities, and overall travel experience.

Norway's most photogenic islands versus the Arctic capital — which is better for northern lights photography?

→ Lofoten wins for aurora photography and dramatic landscapes; Tromsø wins for aurora reliability and activities breadth.

Iceland's most dramatic volcanic region versus the accessible capital — which gives the better aurora experience in Iceland?

→ Mývatn wins on aurora reliability (inland, less cloud), geothermal bathing, and volcanic drama; Reykjavik wins on accessibility, city life, and international connections.

The wilder, quieter Lyngen Alps versus Norway's aurora capital — both at the same latitude, very different in character.

→ Lyngen wins for mountain scenery, powder skiing, and wilderness photography; Tromsø wins for activities breadth, whale watching, and urban comforts.

Britain's two northernmost island groups — both offer aurora, wildlife, and dramatic scenery, but with very different characters.

→ Shetland wins on aurora frequency and Norse character; Orkney wins on Neolithic monuments and easier access.

Two of the Arctic's most spectacular destinations — Greenland's icefjord city versus Norway's polar wilderness archipelago.

→ Both are bucket-list Arctic experiences; Ilulissat wins for icebergs and aurora photography; Svalbard wins for polar bears, glaciers, and expedition feel.

Canada's most famous mountain destination versus its Aurora Capital — very different aurora probabilities, very different experiences.

→ Yellowknife wins decisively on aurora reliability (aurora score 9 vs 4); Banff wins on skiing, mountain scenery, and overall tourism infrastructure.

Two Yukon aurora destinations — the historic Gold Rush town versus the Yukon capital. Both offer outstanding aurora but very different town character.

→ Dawson City wins on character, history, and quirky atmosphere; Whitehorse wins on accessibility, tour operator choice, and accommodation range.

The world's two best clear-sky aurora locations — Greenland's ice cap gateway versus Sweden's microclimate marvel. Both claim the world's clearest aurora skies.

→ Both are statistically exceptional; Kangerlussuaq wins on remoteness and ice cap access; Abisko wins on infrastructure, activities, and overall value.

Finland's aurora capital on the Arctic Circle versus the remote Sámi heartland 300km further north.

→ Inari has significantly better aurora viewing — darker skies, higher latitude, less light pollution.

The two most popular city-based aurora destinations in the world. Which delivers better?

→ Tromsø has the higher aurora score (9 vs 7) and darker skies.

Alaska's interior aurora capital versus its biggest city — a 6-hour drive apart but worlds away in aurora viewing.

→ Fairbanks wins decisively for aurora (score 9 vs 6).