Stockholm or Copenhagen 3 or 4 days

There’s no right or wrong answer. Except that you are probably right you can only see one city in that amount of time.

Personally, if you end your cruise in Stockholm I would say stay there. There is plenty to see and do! And it will take a half day to get to Copenhagen.

We all have our favorites, but I was surprised after visiting both in 2018 that I liked Stockholm more. For some reason I thought it would be the other way around.

But really, see whichever city you find yourself more excited about.

I happen to have loved my recent visit to Stockholm, and since you'll already be there, I'm casting my vote for Stockholm.

But not having spent any time in Copenhagen, I can't make a personal comparison.

Stockholm is worth that amount of time or more, so I'd definitely take advantage of already being there.

You will have 3 or 4 great days, no matter what you choose. But if you aldready are in Stockholm, it sounds easier just to stay there.

I'd prefer Copenhagen, but that's because I really like the old fort.

This is worth some consideration. Assuming that you will never return (even though RS rightly encourages all travellers to assume that they will return) you should get a feel for both as they are not interchangeable. Extend the trip if possible, adding one or two more days, giving stockholm 3 days and Copenhagen the rest. However, if you know you'll return whatever you do is fine. Copenhagen is the more relaxed, warm and friendly of the two, lacking some, but not all, of the beauty of its eternal rival to the north.

I did not, myself, find Copenhagen to be either warmer or friendlier than Stockholm. That's not intended as a criticism of Copenhagen at all. Stockholm we found to be quite friendly.

If the cruise ends in Stockholm, I would spend the time there. The train to Copenhagen takes 6 hours or more. So just keep in mind that if you choose Copenhagen, you are going to use basically a full day just getting there.

THE PRESTIGE
Of course several different experiences are always simultaneously available in any given city, but you have to calculate risk, chance, opportunity and percentage. Having lived in one and visited the other repeatedly the impressions remain. Let's have a look at what the good book has to say.

RICK STEVES COPENHAGEN:
"You'll feel right at home", "Scandinavias' cheapest and most fun-loving capital".

RICK STEVES STOCKHOLM:
"The city feels wealthy, sometimes snobby, and a bit sure of itself", "rivals Oslo in expense and beats it in pretense".

Full concurrence achieved, as I couldn't agree more. Spot on!

I value Rick's opinions highly, but I just can't agree with these. Stockholm felt no more expensive to me than Copenhagen, and frankly I felt more at home in Stockholm. Just goes to show that everyone is different.

Many decades ago (1970s) I read--probably in the Europe on $XX a Day books--that the Danes had more in common with Americans in terms of personality than any other European nationality. Perhaps that's something underlying these comments.

I haven't been to Copenhagen since 1972, so I can draw no comparisons, but I've spent over 2 weeks in Stockholm in the last 2-1/2 years, and I loved it. There you can find gorgeous scenery, beautiful buildings and a nice variety of museums.

I just left Copenhagen on Sunday after spending five days there - and four days earlier in the trip in Stockholm. I found Copenhagen way more expensive than Stockholm.

I'd also say that I don't agree with the statement quoted above. Prices vary, but in general I'd say that Copenhagen is not cheaper than Stockholm. And none of the cities are that homogenous, you can find wealthy, snobby and fun-loving areas in both.

Thank you all for your comments