Part 91K is much safer
 

2010-2016 had no fatalities for 91K.

Part 91 bizav(US registered turbine business airplanes) was 94 dead.

5 accidents vs. 114

Part 135 16 fatalities in a8 accidents.

Is this a realistic comparison?

Without knowing exactly how many flight hours were flown in each category, a rate comparison isn't possible.

I wonder how many of these " part 91 registered business airplanes" were comparable to what the fractionals (91K) fly and how many of them were professionally flown versus owner flown? Comparing single pilot owner flown turboprops & light jets to pro trained crew flown large cabin jets wouldn't tell us much we don't already know would it?

Well, that "pro-trained" crew in the Gulfstream that didn't make it off the ground a couple of years ago sure skewed that dataset.
:E:E:E
f

Yeah I figured someone would bring up an exception to the general rule. Someone always does. Scheduled airlines have a few isolated events like that too. My point being that comparing apples to apples will yield more credible statistical results. Comparing 91K fractional programs to a group populated by an unspecified number of "other than professional" pilots is bound to be skewed. Included in this group is the CJ that took off from Cleveland Lakefront and lost control and numerous other cases of turbine powered airplanes crashed by amateurs. Not a straight comparison by any means. Also the 135 sector is usually broken down such that singles and other single pilot ops are included, which skews the results somewhat. The only way to accurately compare 135 to 91 to 91K would be to parse the data used so that the types of missions, equipment and pilot qualifications were relatively equal. Otherwise what use are the statistical conclusions?

I wonder how many of the part 91 accidents were actually part 135 or part 91K aircraft/crews positioning on empty legs... As someone else has said, how many were owner flown (non professional crew)...

These statistics are ambiguous.