wr

I am debating between these two hotels, and would love some advice from people who have actually seen them. Primarily, I am curious about which resort has the nicer rooms (new, clean, elegant) and grounds (pool and landscaping). By the way, while I do not have children, they do not bother me so that is not a negative as far as the Hilton goes.

fdecarlo

Between those two it's not even close -- the Orchid's rooms are better furnished, the bathrooms are twice as big (and marble), and the grounds are much smaller but more elegant.

sandinmytoes

wr, I have stayed in both and they are very different hotels. The Hilton is MUCH larger and definitely has a "busier" feel. It does not have a beach, though they have a large man made pool that resembles a beach. They have several pools, none too exciting. Must admit that I have not stayed at the Orchid since it became a Fairmont (have eaten there though). The rooms are larger and more luxurious. The pool is nice (even a hot tub right on the shore) and the beach, while man made and not overly large, has great swimming and easy snorkling. The Orchid just feels more relaxing. That said, the Hilton has more choices in restaurants, pools, activities, etc. Given your description (elegant, grounds, landscaping), I would definitely choose the Orchid

Jenn

I would have to say that without children I would see no reason to go to the Hilton. My choices would be
between the Orchid and the Mauna Lani.
Both are beautiful. The Orchid has the
better pool and a nice gentle lagoon for
relaxing in the ocean. Browns at the
Orchid is terrific with a wonderful view. The ML has the Canoe House with
great food and view also.
The Hilton feels like a busy city within a very large hotel.

TedTurner

Hilton Waikoloa vs. Orchid is like comparing Chuck E. Cheese to Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. Relative to the Orchid, there is no reason to go to the HW except 1) to please the kids, 2) you need to redeem a Hilton travel award.