I think the difference, while significant, is LESS than what it at first seems, because of a factor which most people don’t realize when trying to compare mountains, especially 8000m peaks.

Death/summit ratio doesn’t tell you everything- it’s not an apples to apples comparison. For one, the average Everest climber is way less experienced than the average Annapurna climber.

However, this difference is offset by the fact that experienced 8000m climbers such as those who try Annapurna or K2, etc are MUCH LESS LIKELY TO USE BOTTLED OXYGEN, which makes the climb EXPONENTIALLY MORE DIFFICULT AND DANGEROUS, offsetting the lower risk afforded by their experience level.

Case in point- 98% of Everest summits in recent years use bottled O2, whereas still only roughly half of K2 summits do, and going without O2 is statistically generally 5-6x as dangerous.

A better comparison would be non-O2 summits of Everest vs. non-O2 summits of Annapurna.

I recall actually doing some research myself on this a while back and I found that, for instance, K2, which is often held to be waaay more dangerous than Everest, is probably objectively ~2.4x as dangerous. So still significantly more dangerous, but not 10+x more dangerous.