Polonnaruwa vs Anuradhapura — which ancient city is more impressive and worth the trip?

I guide both sites regularly. The honest comparison:

Fundamental difference:
- Anuradhapura is vast (40+ sq km), ancient (3rd century BC), and primarily a working pilgrimage site. The ruins are spread over enormous distances and many are partially buried or crumbled. Better for atmosphere and sacred experience than photogenic ruins.
- Polonnaruwa is more compact, better preserved, and more photogenic. The ruins date from the 11th–13th century AD and many remain structurally impressive. Better for someone who wants to see clearly defined architecture.

For a first-time visitor with limited time: Polonnaruwa.

Why Polonnaruwa wins for most visitors:
1. The Gal Vihara — four enormous rock-cut Buddha figures (including a 14m reclining Buddha) carved from a single granite face in the 12th century. Among the finest Buddhist sculpture in Asia. Worth the trip from Colombo alone.
2. Vatadage — a perfectly circular relic house with four Buddha statues at the cardinal points. Compact and extraordinary.
3. Lankathilaka — a 17m-tall brick shell of a former image house. The scale is impressive even in ruin.
4. The entire core archaeological zone is cyclable — rent a bicycle at the entrance (LKR 300–500) and cover everything in 4 hours.

Why Anuradhapura matters:
If you are Buddhist or have a deep interest in the religion's history, Anuradhapura is unmissable — the sacred Bo tree (planted from the original tree under which the Buddha attained enlightenment, 288 BC) and the Ruwanwelisaya dagoba are pilgrimage sites of global significance. Allow a full day and go with a guide.