Which has the larger cabin?

The PC-24 has the larger cabin in both dimensions and volume. The cabin width is approximately 6 feet 9 inches versus the Phenom 300E's 5 feet 1 inch; the cabin height is approximately 5 feet 1 inch versus the Phenom 300E's 4 feet 11 inches; the typical seating configuration accommodates 6 to 8 passengers in standard executive layout, with capacity up to 11 in a higher-density configuration. The PC-24's cabin volume is approximately 50 percent larger than the Phenom 300E's.

What is the takeoff distance comparison?

The PC-24 takes off in a minimum of 2,930 feet, versus the Phenom 300E's minimum of 3,209 feet. The PC-24's superior short-field performance, combined with the aircraft's certified ability to operate from unpaved and grass runways, gives it access to approximately 21,000 airports globally versus approximately 10,000 for the Phenom 300E. The short-field and rough-field capability is the principal Pilatus operational differentiator.

What is the range comparison?

The Phenom 300E has a longer range at approximately 2,010 nautical miles with full payload, versus the PC-24's approximately 2,000 nautical miles. The two aircraft are essentially equivalent on range with typical configurations, though the Phenom 300E has the payload-with-maximum-fuel advantage at approximately 1,586 pounds versus the PC-24's approximately 715 pounds.

Which costs more to charter?

The PC-24 typically charters at the higher rate, approximately GBP 4,500 to 6,500 per hour, versus the Phenom 300E's approximately GBP 3,500 to 5,000 per hour. The differential reflects the higher acquisition cost and the lower operator base of the PC-24, partially offset by the operational flexibility of the type. For charter customers, the Phenom 300E is typically the better-value light-jet option unless the specific mission requires the PC-24's short-field or cabin-volume capabilities.

Pilatus PC-24 vs Embraer Phenom 300E: Light Jet Head-to-Head 2026

The Pilatus PC-24 and the Embraer Phenom 300E are the two most important light jets in current production, and the choice between them is the single most-discussed comparison in the light-jet segment in 2026. The aircraft solve substantially different problems within the light-jet mission profile, and the choice between them depends meaningfully on the specific operating requirements of the buyer or charter customer. This is the report on what each aircraft actually does well, where the head-to-head comparison breaks down, and what the practical advice is for buyers and charter customers in the segment.

The data below is from each manufacturer’s published specifications, the cross-referenced specifications on Conklin & de Decker and AvBuyer, and operational data from charter operators flying both types.

The performance envelope

The two aircraft are positioned at substantially comparable performance points on most measures, with specific differentiators on a handful of operational characteristics. The summary picture:

The PC-24 maximum range is approximately 2,000 nautical miles with typical configuration; the Phenom 300E approximately 2,010 nautical miles. The aircraft are essentially equivalent on range for the standard mission profile.

The PC-24 maximum cruise speed is approximately 440 knots; the Phenom 300E maximum cruise speed is approximately 464 knots (the higher figure reflecting the Phenom 300E’s slightly more powerful Pratt & Whitney Canada PW535E1 engines and the more aerodynamically optimised wing). On long-range cruise both aircraft operate in the Mach 0.74 to 0.78 range. The speed advantage of the Phenom 300E translates into modest time savings on transcontinental missions — approximately 10 to 20 minutes on a typical 3-hour mission.

The PC-24 maximum operating altitude is 45,000 feet; the Phenom 300E maximum operating altitude is 45,000 feet. The aircraft are equivalent on altitude ceiling.

The PC-24 minimum takeoff distance is 2,930 feet; the Phenom 300E minimum takeoff distance is 3,209 feet. The PC-24’s superior short-field performance is the principal Pilatus operational differentiator, and is the basis of the aircraft’s marketing position as the “Super Versatile Jet.”

The Phenom 300E minimum landing distance is 2,212 feet; the PC-24’s landing distance is comparable but slightly longer. Both aircraft have excellent short-field landing performance for the segment.

The cabin

The cabin comparison is the most consequential differentiator between the two aircraft.

The PC-24 cabin offers approximately 6 feet 9 inches of width, 5 feet 1 inch of height, and approximately 23 feet of length (excluding the cockpit). The cabin volume is approximately 501 cubic feet. The standard seating configuration accommodates 6 to 8 passengers in executive layout, with a high-density configuration option for up to 11 passengers. The aircraft features a generous standard pallet-sized cargo door and a flat cabin floor, enabling loading and unloading of substantial luggage and cargo that the Phenom 300E cannot accommodate.

The Phenom 300E cabin offers approximately 5 feet 1 inch of width, 4 feet 11 inches of height, and approximately 17 feet of length. The cabin volume is approximately 328 cubic feet. The standard seating configuration accommodates 6 to 9 passengers in executive layout. The cabin door is a standard executive-jet airstair door without the cargo-loading capability of the PC-24.

The cabin volume difference matters. The PC-24’s approximately 50-percent larger cabin volume is meaningful in two specific operational scenarios. First, for missions where passengers travel with substantial luggage (skiing, golf, hunting trips with equipment), the PC-24’s cargo capability and larger cabin space is genuinely useful. Second, for missions where the passenger group spreads out for working flights (multi-person teams travelling together), the larger cabin provides meaningfully more usable working space.

For the typical executive transport mission with three to five business passengers and standard carry-on luggage, the cabin difference is less consequential — both aircraft are adequate for the mission, and the Phenom 300E’s smaller cabin is not a meaningful operational constraint.

The avionics and technology

Both aircraft are equipped with contemporary integrated avionics platforms that include synthetic vision, autopilot with envelope protection, and the standard contemporary safety equipment.

The PC-24 features the Pilatus Advanced Cockpit Environment (ACE), based on the Honeywell Primus Apex platform with Pilatus-specific customisations. The system includes touchscreen displays, enhanced vision system (EVS), and the integrated synthetic vision capability that has become standard in the segment.

The Phenom 300E features the Embraer Prodigy Touch flight deck, based on the Garmin G3000 platform with Embraer-specific customisations. The system includes the Garmin touchscreen displays, the high-resolution synthetic vision, and the advanced autopilot capabilities that the Garmin platform has become known for.

Both flight deck platforms are at the contemporary standard for the segment and neither offers a meaningful technological advantage over the other. Pilot preference between the two systems is largely a function of training history and exposure rather than of substantive capability differences.

The rough-field capability

The principal Pilatus operational differentiator is the aircraft’s certified rough-field capability. The PC-24 is certified for operations on unpaved runways, including grass strips and gravel runways, which expands the operational airport network substantially. Pilatus’s published count is approximately 21,000 airports globally that the PC-24 can access, versus approximately 10,000 for the Phenom 300E.

The rough-field certification is meaningful for specific operational profiles — operators in Africa, Central and South America, parts of Asia-Pacific, and the more remote regions of North America where unpaved runways remain the access points for many destinations. For the typical North American or European executive transport mission, the rough-field capability is rarely used; for the operator whose mission profile includes remote or unpaved destinations, the capability is essential.

The cargo-door configuration and the flat cabin floor on the PC-24 also enable operational profiles that the Phenom 300E cannot serve. The PC-24 can be configured as a combination passenger-cargo aircraft, as a medical evacuation platform, or as a specialised survey aircraft with substantially more equipment-loading flexibility than the Phenom 300E.

The cost picture

The PC-24 typical charter rate is approximately GBP 4,500 to 6,500 per hour. The Phenom 300E typical charter rate is approximately GBP 3,500 to 5,000 per hour. The differential reflects the higher acquisition cost of the PC-24 (approximately USD 11 to 12 million versus approximately USD 9.8 to 10.5 million for the Phenom 300E), the lower operator base of the PC-24 (which means less competition for charter mandates), and the operational flexibility premium that the rough-field and cabin-cargo capabilities command.

The direct operating cost comparison favours the Phenom 300E by approximately 5 to 10 percent on a typical hourly basis, principally because of the Phenom 300E’s slightly lower fuel burn per mile and the larger installed base supporting more competitive maintenance pricing.

The acquisition cost analysis for a corporate flight department comparing the two types is largely a function of mission profile. For a department whose missions are concentrated on standard paved-runway airports with typical executive-transport passenger loads, the Phenom 300E is the more cost-effective choice. For a department whose missions include any meaningful proportion of rough-field operations or cargo-carrying missions, the PC-24 is the more capable choice.

What I would buy or charter

For a corporate flight department choosing between the two as a primary light jet, the recommended approach is to analyse the mission profile carefully. If the mission profile includes any meaningful rough-field operations, cargo-carrying requirements, or the larger-cabin requirements that justify the cabin-volume premium, the PC-24 is the right choice. For all other typical executive-transport mission profiles, the Phenom 300E is the more cost-effective choice with substantially equivalent operational capability for the standard mission.

For a charter customer, the same analysis applies. The Phenom 300E is the default light-jet charter choice for the typical mission profile; the PC-24 is the right choice for the specific operational scenarios where its differentiators matter.

For a fractional buyer at the light-jet level, the choice is largely determined by the operator. NetJets offers the Phenom 300E (300 series, including various model years), but not the PC-24. Flexjet offers the Phenom 300E (in the Embraer order from the 2022 USD 7-billion programme), but not the PC-24. PlaneSense in the US is the principal fractional operator of the PC-24, with a substantial fleet built around the aircraft’s specific mission profile. The structural availability of the PC-24 in fractional ownership is limited compared to the Phenom 300E.

The 2026 outlook for both aircraft is positive. The Phenom 300E remains the best-selling light jet in the segment, with the continued delivery pace from Embraer’s São José dos Campos production line tracking at approximately 60 to 80 aircraft per year. The PC-24 continues to deliver at approximately 40 to 50 aircraft per year from the Stans facility in Switzerland. Both manufacturers have healthy order books extending several years forward, and both aircraft are likely to remain the principal competitors in the segment through the remainder of the decade.

Verification

Filed against the following sources, last verified on June 2, 2026. The desk re-checks the source URLs on every dated modification of the piece.

Standing Questions

Which aircraft is faster?: The Embraer Phenom 300E is faster on top speed at 464 knots (Mach 0.81 maximum operating speed) versus the Pilatus PC-24's approximately 440 knots. On long-range cruise both aircraft operate in the Mach 0.74 to 0.78 range, with the speed advantage of the Phenom 300E being most relevant for transcontinental missions where the time savings accumulate over multi-hour legs.
Which has the larger cabin?: The PC-24 has the larger cabin in both dimensions and volume. The cabin width is approximately 6 feet 9 inches versus the Phenom 300E's 5 feet 1 inch; the cabin height is approximately 5 feet 1 inch versus the Phenom 300E's 4 feet 11 inches; the typical seating configuration accommodates 6 to 8 passengers in standard executive layout, with capacity up to 11 in a higher-density configuration. The PC-24's cabin volume is approximately 50 percent larger than the Phenom 300E's.
What is the takeoff distance comparison?: The PC-24 takes off in a minimum of 2,930 feet, versus the Phenom 300E's minimum of 3,209 feet. The PC-24's superior short-field performance, combined with the aircraft's certified ability to operate from unpaved and grass runways, gives it access to approximately 21,000 airports globally versus approximately 10,000 for the Phenom 300E. The short-field and rough-field capability is the principal Pilatus operational differentiator.
What is the range comparison?: The Phenom 300E has a longer range at approximately 2,010 nautical miles with full payload, versus the PC-24's approximately 2,000 nautical miles. The two aircraft are essentially equivalent on range with typical configurations, though the Phenom 300E has the payload-with-maximum-fuel advantage at approximately 1,586 pounds versus the PC-24's approximately 715 pounds.
Which costs more to charter?: The PC-24 typically charters at the higher rate, approximately GBP 4,500 to 6,500 per hour, versus the Phenom 300E's approximately GBP 3,500 to 5,000 per hour. The differential reflects the higher acquisition cost and the lower operator base of the PC-24, partially offset by the operational flexibility of the type. For charter customers, the Phenom 300E is typically the better-value light-jet option unless the specific mission requires the PC-24's short-field or cabin-volume capabilities.