HikeMetrics
Global Hiking Index
HikeMetrics
Global Hiking Index
Head-to-head match-up

Dana to Petra (Jordan Trail) vs The John Muir Trail (JMT)Which Hike is Harder?

61/100
Route A

Dana to Petra (Jordan Trail)

jordan

88/100
Route B

The John Muir Trail (JMT)

usa

Commitment at a glance

Bar length is schematic—not equal units—so multi-day load does not look “similar” to a few hours.

Dana to Petra5 days · 76 km
The John Muir Trail21 days · 340 km

Quick Verdict

Which hike is harder?

The planning question most people actually need: is either route too hard—or too remote—for your skills and rescue margin right now?

The John Muir Trail (JMT) is significantly harder overall (88 vs 61 on our intensity index) because it demands more technical terrain, far greater remoteness, and much higher consequence when things go wrong—not only harder footing. However, Dana to Petra (Jordan Trail) may still feel more demanding if you struggle with repeated steep days, slick footing, or carrying fatigue across consecutive stages.

Mission Context

  • Harder: The John Muir Trail
  • More technical terrain (modeled footing & obstacles): The John Muir Trail
  • More weather-sensitive across the full route commitment in this pairing: The John Muir Trail
  • Remoteness ties (5/5)—still compare roads out and comms in dossiers.
  • Better lower-consequence progression route before the other: The John Muir Trail

Compare with another route

Key difference

The John Muir Trail loads more into sustained physical load and repeated climbing. Dana to Petra shifts more emphasis toward steadier pacing, less technical daily movement, and lower-consequence logistics within this pairing. On our composite index, The John Muir Trail still reads as the heavier overall commitment in this pairing.

Planning snapshot

Elevation context, daily rhythm, and footing—how the two profiles diverge in practice.

CategoryDana to PetraThe John Muir Trail
Elevation context & weather feel~1200 m — ridgelines run cooler and mistier; pack and plan like a mountain hike, not only a shore walk.~4421 m — high-altitude aerobic tax: many days sit in thinner-air bands where oxygen availability is lower than coastal routes, so equal map distance costs more physiologically.
Daily rhythm & commitmentMulti-day — confirm how fixed overnight stops are before assuming you can improvise stages.Arctic traverse commitment — daily progress is shaped by river levels, weather windows, viable camp zones, and the reality that exits are slow and often weather-dependent.
Navigation readSee dossier navigation notes.Terrain intuition: moraine, stone, and braided water cue your line more than waymarks—there is no maintained trail in the conventional sense.
Typical footingFooting tracks technical ~32/100—see dossier terrain class for nuance.Mixed tread quality: established trail, rough alpine travel, eroded sections, deadfall, meadow navigation, and occasional poorly defined or off-trail segments. Expect a deadfall penalty: map distance can convert into full-body high-step hours when timber blocks the corridor.

Decision physics — deeper read

Pace and vertical geometry—use after the headline verdict when you want the numbers translated into trail feel.

Implied pace from dossier walking-hour bands: ~2.0 km/h on Dana to Petra versus ~1.8 km/h on The John Muir Trail. That ≈11% gap in implied pace is often the clearest signal that raw distance is a weak proxy for how hard the days will feel.

Vertical density: ~35 m gain per km on Dana to Petra vs ~41 m/km on The John Muir Trail (≈1.2× tighter on the steeper-per-km route)—classic “distance vs staircase” geometry.

Hiker-Route Fit

All four experience tiers—nothing omitted. Scan where your profile lands; “Poor fit” is intentional when the gap is large.

Beginner

Dana

Poor fit

The

Poor fit

Intermediate

Dana

Poor fit

The

Poor fit

Advanced

Dana

Stretch / prep

The

Poor fit

Expert

Dana

Good fit

The

Good fit

Ground TruthDana to PetraThe John Muir Trail
Hazard & consequencesheat and sun exposure: The transit across the Wadi Araba floor involves sustained exposure to temperatures exceeding 40°C in unshaded desert conditions. flash flood risk: Narrow canyon systems (Wadis) in the Rift Valley are subject to rapid flash flooding from localized rainfall in the eastern highlands.altitude sickness: Much of the trail stays above 3,000 meters. Altitude sickness (AMS) is a real risk. bear encounters: The Sierra is home to persistent and intelligent Black Bears. Altitude Warning: Potential altitude-related conditions include AMS, HAPE, and HACE. Adequate acclimatization is essential.
Navigation & routeActive navigation each day: confirm waymarks, map, and bailout points before you lose light or visibility.Active navigation each day: confirm waymarks, map, and bailout points before you lose light or visibility.
Weather exposureMountain or forest weather: mist, cold snaps, and rain that turns footing slick—budget slower days after wet spells.Mountain weather can shut down progress or raise consequence quickly: cold rain, early snow, wind exposure, and visibility loss all matter more when exits are sparse and resupply timing is fixed.
Access & resupplyResupply & water: Eco-lodges / Mobile Camps Access & services: Access is typically via Amman to Dana Village. The return logistics are centered in Wadi Musa (Petra), where taxi/shuttle services connect back to Amman or Aqaba.Resupply & water: Muir Trail Ranch / VVR
Comms & reachCoverage: Negligible — Rescue is managed via regional police and Bedouin networks. Ground evacuation from the Wadi Araba or the Petra mountains is slow due to terrain fragmentation; satellite communication devices are recommended.Coverage: Zero — Search and Rescue (SAR) is limited and weather-dependent. Helicopter evacuation is subject to clear visibility and environmental safety thresholds.

A day on the trail

One vibe line plus three bullets per route—enough to sanity-check pacing without re-reading the full dossier.

Dana to Petra

Feels like a compressed, high-focus outing—short miles can still feel serious when edges, slick rock, and crowds stack stress.

  • Modeled average: about 13–18 km per indexed calendar day (your stages can land above or below that band).
  • Walking-time hint from the dossier: 6–9 where hours are specified alongside days.
  • If you sit in that walking-hour band, implied pace is about 2.0 km per walking hour on an average day—compare routes on this, not on “eight hours is eight hours.”

The John Muir Trail

Feels like mountain journeying where exposure, weather windows, and vertical pacing matter more than the flat map distance.

  • Uneven expedition-style days are shaped by river levels, viable camp zones, and weather windows—not a metronome stage plan.
  • Navigation and terrain reading consume time even when summit vertical looks modest—moraine friction and unbridged river work often drive fatigue more than the elevation profile suggests.
  • Modeled average: about 14–19 km per indexed calendar day (your stages can land above or below that band).

Terrain Differences

Dana to Petra (Jordan Trail): The Dana to Petra section of the Jordan Trail is a multi-day desert traverse connecting the Dana Biosphere Reserve to the archaeological site of Petra. The route transits through the Great Rift Valley, descending from the Dana ridge at 1,200 meters through the Wadi Dana gorge into the arid plains of Wadi Araba. High Desert Landscapes and Ancient Nabataean Paths. The trek offers a unique cross-section of the Dead Sea Rift's eastern edge.

The John Muir Trail (JMT): The finest mountain trek in America. The John Muir Trail (JMT) passes through what Muir called the 'Range of Light'—the High Sierra of California. Over 340km, the trail traverses Yosemite, Ansel Adams Wilderness, Devils Postpile, and Kings Canyon, ending at the summit of Mount Whitney (4421m). The Solitude of the High Sierra. Long sections of the JMT are over two days' walk from the nearest road.

Final verdict

Final verdict: for most hikers comparing these two hikes, The John Muir Trail (JMT) is the tougher overall commitment in this pair; Dana to Petra (Jordan Trail) is the more approachable option.

Choose The John Muir Trail (JMT) if you want a far more serious wilderness commitment with off-trail judgment, river management, and consequences that stay high throughout the traverse. Choose Dana to Petra (Jordan Trail) for a lower-consequence but still substantial multi-day challenge.

Plan & prepare your hike

Next step: explore the full route guide

Once you have chosen your route, open the full guide to review key logistics, gear, and preparation tips—then use the Plan This Hike section to organize your trip.

Each guide includes route context, practical preparation advice, and curated resources to help you plan your hike.

Who should choose which route?

Choose Dana to Petra if you:

  • You prefer the lighter logistical load while still getting a credible experience.
  • You want a clearer time box with fewer consecutive hard days.
  • You are building endurance before tackling bigger expedition-style routes.

Choose John Muir Trail if you:

  • You want a serious Arctic expedition where remoteness, river crossings, and route ambiguity matter as much as miles underfoot.
  • You can self-manage in true wilderness where route-finding, rivers, weather, and delayed rescue all stack consequence.
  • You have the technical judgment to scout and manage bridgeless glacial river surges (including “glacial milk” silt), plus moraine travel and weather that can lock progress or force extraction waits.

Do not choose if…

Hard filters derived from remoteness, hazard tier, risks, and dossier audience tags—not polite suggestions.

Dana to Petra

  • Do not choose Dana to Petra if you are not already an expert-level wilderness traveler with relevant comparable trips behind you.
  • Do not choose if you cannot tolerate long stretches without services, reliable comms, or fast exit options.

The John Muir Trail

  • Do not choose The John Muir Trail if multi-day remote terrain, self-rescue judgment, and rough footing under load are all new to you.
  • Do not choose if you cannot tolerate long stretches without services, reliable comms, or fast exit options.
  • Do not choose if you cannot accept that mistakes here may carry severe or fatal consequences.
  • Do not choose without a satellite communicator and a practiced emergency plan.
  • Do not choose if you cannot stay functional when route-finding, food carry, weather, and wildlife pressure stack at the same time.
  • Do not choose if you are assuming easy self-rescue—injury in the middle of this traverse can mean waiting for weather-cleared extraction rather than walking out.

Metrics engine

Head-to-head performance variables computation.

Intensity Score
Route BHigher Demand
61
88
Physical Load
Route BMore Taxing
70
81
Technical
Route BMore Technical
32
55
Distance
Route BLonger
76 km
340 km
Elevation Gain
Route BMore vertical
2,679 m
14,000 m
Vertical density
Route BMore climb per km
~35 m/km
~41 m/km
Implied walking pace
Route BSlower modeled pace
~2.0 km/h
~1.8 km/h
Highest Point
Route BHigher summit
1,200 m
4,421 m
Duration
Route BLonger commitment
5 days
21 days
Hazard Level
Route BHigher hazard level
SERIOUS // HIGH CONSEQUENCE (4/5)
LETHAL // NO-MARGIN (5/5)

Reading the metrics

  • Technical score reflects terrain complexity in the model (footing, obstacles, sustained steepness), not perceived exposure or tourist-style edge risk.
  • Across mismatched trip classes, intensity numbers describe position on the same index—not equal time under load or comparable logistics.
  • Implied walking pace divides indexed horizontal distance per day by the midpoint of each dossier’s walking-hour band when both exist—a workload sanity check, not a stopwatch guarantee.
  • On short multi-day trips, some dossiers encode cumulative route hours (not per-day averages). When that pattern is detected, we show route-wide pace instead of a misleading per-day figure.
  • Vertical density is total modeled gain divided by horizontal route distance.

Technical score bands (0–100)

  • 020Defined tread, few modeled obstacles—mostly hiking pace variance.
  • 2140Rougher path: loose stone, roots, mud, or slower footing.
  • 4160Steep or uneven moves; hands-on moves possible in places.
  • 6180Strong route-finding signals and/or sustained exposure in the dossier mix.
  • 81100High-consequence expedition or Arctic/wilderness terrain seriousness in the model.
Hazard level — what the labels mean
  • LOW // ACCESS (1/5)Bumps and bruises territory; help is usually close if you carry a phone.Low access friction for prepared walkers; slips still hurt, but margins are wide.
  • STANDARD // TRAIL (2/5)Injury possible; rescue is typically reachable in reasonable time when you call early.Standard trail stakes: weather, footing, and fatigue drive most incidents.
  • MODERATE // CHALLENGING (3/5)Serious harm is plausible—self-rescue skill and solid judgment matter as much as fitness.A bad decision or a fall can turn serious; self-rescue and navigation skills matter.
  • SERIOUS // HIGH CONSEQUENCE (4/5)Outcomes can be severe; professional rescue may be slow, limited, or weather-gated.Serious, high-consequence terrain; injuries can be severe and help may be slow.
  • LETHAL // NO-MARGIN (5/5)Mistakes can be fatal; rescue is uncertain, delayed, or impossible until conditions allow.Mistakes can be fatal; rescue is not guaranteed and is often weather- or logistics-gated.

Ready to lock in a mission?