Where to ski

Compare ski resorts

Compare long-term ski-area quality, current conditions and short-term seven-day skiing scenarios without mixing their evidence.

Selected10 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Chamonix narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Hochjoch is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Chamonix

77/100

Why

Chamonix narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Hochjoch is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.

Mixed evidenceUpdated 15 h ago

Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
Solid upper-mountain snow base at 259 cm.

AlternativeHochjoch

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Hochjoch is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

Would change ifA material forecast shift or a different priority profile could change the ranking.

Open webcams Show on map Inspect forecast

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Chamonix

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Hochjoch. strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Chamonix leads Hochjoch Access +8.8 pts and Snow now +6.7 pts

Terrain fit -10.3Access +8.8Snow now +6.7Snow reliability -2.3

Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeHochjoch

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Hochjoch is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 44 and Hochjoch becomes the leading option.

Lead margin2.7pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–1.

Evidence confidence73%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier4 options

1 option is dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Explore decision boundaries · what preference change flips the winner?

These are the smallest tested single-dimension changes that produce a different leader. Apply one to inspect that scenario; no new database query is required to calculate the boundary.

Family & valueHochjoch

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 44 and Hochjoch becomes the leading option.

12 → 44

ScaleHochjoch

Increase scale weight from 16 to 55 and Hochjoch becomes the leading option.

16 → 55

SnowBreuil Cervinia

Increase snow weight from 24 to 84 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

24 → 84

Why Chamonix leads Hochjoch · 2.7 pts

Access+8.8 pts

Current opportunity+6.7 pts

Scale-3.9 pts

Terrain-3.2 pts

Family & value-3.1 pts

Snow-2.3 pts

Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

Trip match is profile-specific. Expand the calculation to see exactly how each score is built.

Chamonix

#1 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision77/100

Fit82/100

Now49/100

Quality6.0/10

Now49259 cm upperReliability7171/100Terrain8686/100Access8563 min

Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit81.986% weight Now48.814% weight Decision77.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow71/100 · 73% evidence 16.9 / 24.0 pts

Terrain86/100 · 80% evidence 19.0 / 22.0 pts

Scale98/100 · 85% evidence 15.7 / 16.0 pts

Lift system76/100 · 68% evidence 10.7 / 14.0 pts

Access85/100 · 68% evidence 10.2 / 12.0 pts

Family & value79/100 · 41% evidence 9.5 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 71%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Mountain snow259 cm 37.0 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow167 cm 8.0 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 84/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area175 km · 2,842 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m55%Best transfer63 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Hochjoch

#2 · Silvretta Montafon · Austria

Decision75/100

Fit75/100

Now0/100

Quality5.8/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6262/100Terrain7979/100

Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit74.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision74.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow62/100 · 73% evidence 16.9 / 27.3 pts

Terrain78/100 · 80% evidence 19.6 / 25.0 pts

Scale96/100 · 100% evidence 17.5 / 18.2 pts

Lift system59/100 · 68% evidence 9.3 / 15.9 pts

Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.3 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 66%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 77/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area142 km · 1,730 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m32%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 62/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow trails the selected-set median by 10 points.

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision68/100

Fit75/100

Now20/100

Quality9.2/10

Now20101 cm upperReliability9494/100Terrain7171/100Access61104 min

Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit75.486% weight Now20.114% weight Decision67.8/100

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow94/100 · 73% evidence 22.5 / 24.0 pts

Terrain75/100 · 80% evidence 16.4 / 22.0 pts

Scale99/100 · 100% evidence 15.9 / 16.0 pts

Lift system40/100 · 68% evidence 5.6 / 14.0 pts

Access61/100 · 68% evidence 7.3 / 12.0 pts

Family & value64/100 · 41% evidence 7.7 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 74%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Mountain snow101 cm 14.4 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow19 cm 2.4 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow68 cm 3.2 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeHigh-alpine snow anchorBest useSnow-first trips · 81/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area322 km · 2,337 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m92%Best transfer104 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 22% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.

Strengths

Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Exceptional reliability match · 94/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Saas

#4 · Saastal · Switzerland

Decision64/100

Fit64/100

Now0/100

Quality8.7/10

Now00 cm freshReliability7474/100Terrain7070/100Access10441 min

Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit63.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision63.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow74/100 · 73% evidence 17.7 / 24.0 pts

Terrain74/100 · 80% evidence 16.3 / 22.0 pts

Scale97/100 · 85% evidence 15.5 / 16.0 pts

Lift system39/100 · 68% evidence 5.4 / 14.0 pts

Access10/100 · 68% evidence 1.2 / 12.0 pts

Family & value63/100 · 41% evidence 7.6 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 71%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 70/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area142 km · 2,101 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m57%Best transfer441 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Althutte

#5 · Althutte · Germany

Decision32/100

Fit32/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability1010/100Terrain4040/100

Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit31.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision31.9/100

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow10/100 · 27% evidence 2.7 / 27.3 pts

Terrain1/100 · 31% evidence 0.2 / 25.0 pts

Scale8/100 · 100% evidence 1.4 / 18.2 pts

Lift system88/100 · 68% evidence 14.1 / 15.9 pts

Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 41%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 55/100Snow reliabilityNot availableSki area0 km · 35 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 40/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 10/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Bardello

#6 · · Italy

Decision–/100

Fit–/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

AccessNo data excluded

Family & valueNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

ScaleNo data excluded

SnowNo data excluded

TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snowNo data excluded

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Destination typeEvidence-limited destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected date

Strengths

The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.

Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Acceglio

#7 · · Italy

Decision–/100

Fit–/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

AccessNo data excluded

Family & valueNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

ScaleNo data excluded

SnowNo data excluded

TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snowNo data excluded

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Destination typeEvidence-limited destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected date

Strengths

The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.

Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Angel Fire

#8 · · United States

Decision–/100

Fit–/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

AccessNo data excluded

Family & valueNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

ScaleNo data excluded

SnowNo data excluded

TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snowNo data excluded

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Destination typeEvidence-limited destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataNo current update

Strengths

The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.

Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Czantoria Wielka

#9 · · Poland

Decision–/100

Fit–/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

AccessNo data excluded

Family & valueNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

ScaleNo data excluded

SnowNo data excluded

TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snowNo data excluded

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Destination typeEvidence-limited destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected date

Strengths

The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.

Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Bad Munder am Deister

#10 · · Germany

Decision–/100

Fit–/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

AccessNo data excluded

Family & valueNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

ScaleNo data excluded

SnowNo data excluded

TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snowNo data excluded

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Destination typeEvidence-limited destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated 6 days earlier

Strengths

The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.

Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Side-by-side evidence

Detailed comparison

Structural snow resilience uses the multi-winter early/core/late archive after daily de-duplication. Calendar-date rows separately compare current observations with the previous five years. Missing archive evidence remains unknown.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	ChamonixChamonix Valley	HochjochSilvretta Montafon	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal	AlthutteAlthutte	BardelloItaly	AcceglioItaly	Angel FireUnited States	Czantoria WielkaPoland	Bad Munder am DeisterGermany
Assessment
Decision score	77/100	75/100	68/100	64/100	32/100	–	–	–	–	–
Structural Fit	82/100clear advantage	75/100	75/100	64/100	32/100	–	–	–	–	–
Current opportunity	49/100clear advantage	0/100	20/100	0/100	0/100	–	–	–	–	–
Overall quality	6.0/10	5.8/10	9.2/10clear advantage	8.7/10	–	–	–	–	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	68/100	67/100	76/100	78/100	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical daytime high	3°C	2°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-6°C	-7°C	-6°C	–	–	–	–	–	–
Rating	8.1/10	7.0/10	8.1/10	7.4/10	–	–	–	–	–	–
Area size class	150–250 km	100–150 km	250+ km	100–150 km	20 km or less	–	–	–	–	–
Ability profile	advanced	intermediate	advanced	advanced	novice	–	–	–	–	–
Price class	high	avg	high	high	–	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	175 km	142 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km	0 km	–	–	–	–	–
Lowest point	1,000 m	700 m	1,562 m	1,472 m	774 m	–	–	–	–	–
Highest point	3,842 m	2,430 m	3,899 m	3,573 m	809 m	–	–	–	–	–
Vertical range	2,842 mclear advantage	1,730 m	2,337 m	2,101 m	35 m	–	–	–	–	–
Blue pistes	34%	42%	23%	22%	100%	–	–	–	–	–
Red pistes	44%	35%	68%	62%	0%	–	–	–	–	–
Black pistes	22%	22%	8%	16%	0%	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	55%	32%	92%clear advantage	57%	–	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	–	–	–	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	97/100	97/100	74/100	84/100	–	–	–	–	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	86/100clear advantage	56/100	51/100	68/100	–	–	–	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	21%clear advantage	5%	6%	2%	–	–	–	–	–	–
Historical context
Historical snow resilience	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical early-winter mountain depth	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical core-winter mountain depth	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical late-winter mountain depth	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow consistency	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Late-winter retention	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lower-mountain retention	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Warm-winter resilience	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain snow versus typical	–	–	Well below typical-22% vs average · 19th percentile	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	Close to typical-4% vs average · 81th percentile	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	30 cm	–	19 cm	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	167 cmclear advantage	–	68 cm	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain snow	259 cmclear advantage	–	101 cm	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	–	–	–	–	–
Snow quality	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	–	0 cm	–	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	556 pph/km	475 pph/km	298 pph/km	289 pph/km	4,000 pph/kmclear advantage	–	–	–	–	–
Lift-system coverage	0.48×	0.29×	0.28×	0.28×	1.33×clear advantage	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain per lift	2.5 km/lift	4.1 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	0.2 km/lift	–	–	–	–	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	8°C	3°C	3°C	4°C	9°C	–	10°C	–	5°C	6°C
Maximum temperature	17°C	5°C	14°C	13°C	16°C	–	21°C	–	9°C	11°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	family	–	family	–	–	–	–	–	–
Piste variety	slopes	slopes	slopes	slopes	–	–	–	–	–	–
Off-piste	offpiste	offpiste	offpiste	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	lifts	lifts	lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	restaurants	restaurants	–	–	–	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	apresski	apresski	apresski	–	–	–	–	–	–
Public transport	transit	transit	transit	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	63 minclear advantage	–	104 min	441 min	–	–	–	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	166 km/h transfer	–	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer	–	–	–	–	–	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Chamonix

Chamonix

Resort overview

Chamonix

Hochjoch

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Althutte

Bardello

Acceglio

Angel Fire

Czantoria Wielka

Bad Munder am Deister

Detailed comparison