Understanding factors affecting the training load of on-ice training is important for better load management, planning and implementation of on-ice training. The aim of this study was to produce valuable knowledge about the characteristics of different on-ice drills and drill proper-ties. Additionally, an assessment of differences in planned vs. perceived training load was done. This study was conducted in collaboration with Finnish Ice Hockey Association and Finnish Institute of High-Performance Sport. Data was collected during the training camps of Finland U17 and U18 national hockey teams. Different on-ice training drills were categorized according to the aim, characteristics, area size and number of players. Internal load was measured with Polar team pro system and RPE questionnaires. TQRS questionnaire was used to evaluate recovery and readiness for training. External load was measured with Wisehockey local positioning system. Additionally, coaches were asked to review the training load of the planned on-ice sessions for comparing the planned and perceived exertion. Significantly larger portions of time in heart rate (HR) zone 4 (80–89% HRmax) was detected in battling drills and flow drills when compared to technical drills (30,88 ± 9,84 & 28,86 ± 3,76 % vs. 7,72 ± 2,21 %). Battling drills also had significantly higher rating of perceived exertion (RPE) than technical drills (7 ± 1 vs. 3 ± 0). Total distances, accelerations, decelerations, and portions of total distances travelled in speed zones 3 (15–20 km/h), 4 (20–25 km/h) and 5 (> 25 km/h) were highest in simulated games. Big area drills had significantly more time spent in HR zone 5 (90-100 % HRmax ) (6,50 ± 7,17 % vs. 9,91 ± 4,28 %), distances travelled in speed zones 3 (24,95 ± 5,33 % vs. 16,50 ± 7,21 %), 4 (5,71 ± 4,05 % vs. 17,02 ± 2,67 %) & 5 (1,81 ± 1,02 % vs. 6,41 ± 1,82 %) , and less distances on speed zone 1 (0-10 km/h) (32,65 ± 9,48 vs. 62,61 ± 20,58 %) when compared to small area drills. Significant differences were only detected in speed zone 1 & 2 distances between >3 player drills and >5 player drills. Game-related actions, such as battling and skating over a large area, as well as increasing the size of the game/training area beyond half a field, seem to be factors that increase the training load in on-ice training. The impact of the number of players on the training load was minimal. More important in planning exercises and training may be the size of the area and the nature/ob-jectives of the drills. These results highlight the importance of monitoring both internal and external load when determining the overall training load of on-ice drills and training sessions in hockey.