Monserrate reviews: one listing you can judge, and five you cannot
Seven listings in this catalogue name Monserrate. One of them is the ticket to the place and it carries 4.4 from 1,428 ratings, which is a real sample. Of the other six, five carry fewer than twenty-five ratings and three carry exactly one. That is the evidence, and it is thin enough that the honest thing is to print its shape before printing anything drawn from it. Every star figure on this site arrives with the number of ratings behind it, on every page and every card.
Five of seven, and three of those are a single rating
A 5.0 from one rating is a true sentence that tells you almost nothing. It is one person, on one day, and no third opinion has ever tested it. Three of the seven listings here are in exactly that position: t864858, t1209358 and t630253. Two more sit on 17 and 9 ratings. Put beside the ticket’s 1,428, none of the six is describing a pattern.
So the averages in the table below are printed with their bases attached and are not added up. An average across the seven would be a number about one ticket wearing the costume of a survey, and this site does not compute one.
The one substantial sample, and the monuments around it
The ticket holds 4.4 from 1,428 ratings. Pena’s ticket holds 4.3 from 20,963 ratings — about fifteen times as many for the monument up the same hill. The largest listing anywhere in this catalogue holds 23,591 ratings and runs Pena, Regaleira, Cabo da Roca and Cascais without stopping here at all, and the four largest Sintra day trips carry 43,665 ratings between them on the same itinerary.
None of which is a fault in anybody. Those days sell what people search for, and the reason Monserrate is quiet is that the coach industry built its morning around two other buildings. It does mean that when somebody says the Sintra tours are well reviewed, what they are describing is a route this palace is not on. All tours groups every listing by whether it comes here.
The seven, side by side
| Listing | Stars (ratings) | From | Monserrate entry | Written reviews | On this site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lisbon: Sintra Full Day Pena Palace, Regaleira & Monserrate | 4.8 (1,848) | €49 | Entry crossed out | 10 | Reviewed |
| Sintra: Monserrate Palace & Park Ticket | 4.4 (1,428) | €12 | Entry stated | 10 | Reviewed |
| From Lisbon: Sintra, Regaleira, Monserrate and Pena Palace | 4.9 (17) | €59 | Entry stated | 10 | Reviewed |
| From Lisbon: SINTRA, Queluz, Monserrate, Castelo dos Mouros and Azenhas do Mar | 5.0 (9) | €71 | Depends on the option | 5 | Reviewed |
| Lisbon: Half Day Trip to Sintra and Monserrate Palace | 5.0 (1) | €79 | Entry crossed out | 1 | Reviewed |
| Sintra: Pena Palace, Moorish Castle, Regaleira, & Monserrate | 5.0 (1) | €135 | Entry crossed out | 1 | — |
| Private from Lisbon: Sintra, Quinta Regaleira, Monserrate + | 5.0 (1) | €192 | Entry stated | none | Reviewed as the listing nobody has written about |
Read the ratings column against the written column. The ratings run from 1,428 down to one; the written column never gets past ten on any listing in the file. Those two columns are measuring different things, which is the next section.
Every written review in the file is five stars. The listings are not.
reviews.json holds a hundred and fifty-seven written reviews across the nineteen listings on this site, one listing has none at all, and no listing has more than ten. Every single one of those a hundred and fifty-seven is a five. Meanwhile the listings they sit under average anywhere from 4.3 to 5.0, and the ticket itself averages 4.4.
Those two statements cannot both be describing the same people. An average of 4.4 does not come out of a set that is entirely five-star, so what this file holds is not a sample of opinion — it is the handful of reviews the platform surfaces at the top of each listing’s page. That makes it useless for sentiment and genuinely useful for detail. Sentiment on this site comes from the star average with its base beside it. Written reviews are quoted for things somebody actually saw.
Two of the hundred and fifty-seven are filed under “GetYourGuide traveler”, which is the platform’s byline for a traveller who set no display name. They are used here, because somebody who left no name still saw what they saw, but neither is introduced as though a person of that name had written it.
What the written reviews are good for: the scaffolding
This is the single most useful thing in the file. Seven of the ten written reviews under the ticket mention the exterior works, in seven different wordings, and every one of the seven still gave it five stars. The roofing and pantry areas are under restoration into the first quarter of 2027; the operator says the site will remain open with safety conditions ensured, and there is scaffolding and temporary protective covering up while the work runs.
meher puts it in one line: “Outside had scaffolding but inside was picturesque. The garden was beautiful”. Cindy is the one to read before you book: “I loved it, but I would have liked to know that the entire exterior was under renovation”. She still gave it five stars, and so did Sylvia, whose only complaint is that “the exterior of the palace is under renovation”. That is a reader who enjoyed the day and wanted to have been told. Telling them is the point of visiting, where the works go at the top rather than in a footnote.
And the park transport, from somebody who went
The hop-on hop-off electric transport inside the park is temporarily unavailable, and the palace sits uphill from the main entrance. The operator offers a paid transfer supplement between the two, round trip, admission not included. Both of those are true at the same time and this site prints both.
Laura is the only reviewer in the file who describes it from the visitor’s side. She says “The gardens are hilly and some are elevated”, and separately that “we had problems with this famous shuttle”. Her advice is to pay for a ride up rather than count on the shuttle running. Getting there has the buses and the road; visiting has the supplement.
Three reviews this site describes rather than quotes
One review under the Monserrate and Regaleira day recommends the company that ran the tour, by name, and tells readers to book with it. No tour operator’s company name appears on this site on any page in any language, including inside somebody else’s quotation marks, so that one is described here and never quoted. Minus the name, what it says is that the tour was good and the guide was knowledgeable and fun. A reviewer naming their own guide by first name is a different thing entirely, and those are quoted as written all over this site.
Two more carry exact amounts: one under the Castle of the Moors ticket comparing the on-site family price with what the app was showing, and one under Pena’s ticket about which bus pass is worth buying. Body copy on this site writes amounts as approximate words on purpose, because a figure typed into a paragraph goes stale silently. That rule cannot reach inside a quotation without rewording somebody else’s sentence, so those two are described and not quoted. The reason for all of it is on editorial policy.
The six pages
Sintra: Monserrate Palace & Park Ticket
The ticket itself, and the only sample here worth the word. Seven of its ten written reviews mention the works.
Read it ›
Lisbon: Sintra Full Day Pena Palace, Regaleira & Monserrate
The busiest listing that names Monserrate, and the one whose own exclusions put every gate fee on top.
Read it ›
From Lisbon: Sintra, Regaleira, Monserrate and Pena Palace
The only listing in the catalogue that puts a clock on the Monserrate visit. Seventeen ratings behind it.
Read it ›
From Lisbon: SINTRA, Queluz, Monserrate, Castelo dos Mouros and Azenhas do Mar
Four monuments in a day, with the entrance fees included “according to the option chosen”. Nine ratings.
Read it ›
Lisbon: Half Day Trip to Sintra and Monserrate Palace
Half a day, and “tickets not included” written inside the inclusion list. One rating, one review.
Read it ›
Private from Lisbon: Sintra, Quinta Regaleira, Monserrate +
Entry to Monserrate stated flat, and not one written word under it. The page says so rather than filling the space.
Read it ›Where to go next
What the ticket costs and what it covers is on tickets, and the short version is the best news on this site: twelve euros buys the palace and the park, and twelve euros is what Parques de Sintra charges at its own window. Whether it is worth the trip at all is on is it worth it. How a listing gets read here, and what happens when a source hedges, is on editorial policy.
Can’t make these dates?
Browse more available Monserrate Palace tickets and find one that fits your schedule — all with instant confirmation and free cancellation.
Frequently asked questions
Are the Monserrate tours well reviewed?
The ticket to the palace is: 4.4 from 1,428 ratings. The day trips that call here are a different story — five of the seven listings naming Monserrate carry fewer than twenty-five ratings and three carry exactly one, so their averages are true sentences about very few people. The base is printed beside every average on this site for that reason.
Why is the number of ratings printed next to every star figure?
Because a 5.0 from one rating and a 4.4 from 1,428 are not the same claim, and only one of them would survive a third opinion. Five of the seven listings that name Monserrate carry fewer than twenty-five ratings, so the base goes in the same sentence as the average, every time.
Do the written reviews tell you what visitors thought?
No, and this page is blunt about why. There are a hundred and fifty-seven written reviews across the nineteen listings here, no listing has more than ten of them, and every one of the hundred and fifty-seven is five stars while the listings average 4.3 to 5.0. That is not a sample of opinion. It is read here for concrete detail and nothing else.
Do reviewers mention the scaffolding?
Constantly. Seven of the ten written reviews under the ticket mention the exterior works, and every one of the seven still gave five stars. The roofing and pantry areas are under restoration into the first quarter of 2027, with scaffolding and temporary covering up; the operator says the site remains open. It is the thing most likely to disappoint somebody who came for the façade, which is why it is not buried.
Why does one review page say there is nothing to review?
Because that is what the evidence says. t630253 carries one rating and not a single written review, so several hundred confident words over it would make the confidence the product. That page sets out what the listing says about itself and stops.
Do you earn anything if I book through this site?
Yes, a commission from GetYourGuide, at no extra cost to you. It buys none of the above, and the affiliate disclosure sets out what it does and does not change.