Skip to main content
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
Comparison workspace

Shape the comparison

Set the comparison priorities, then inspect which selected resort fits best and what could change the result.

10 of 10 selected
Export
Add resorts

Balances permanent quality, snow reliability, terrain and current conditions.

Tune prioritiesBalanced
Decision weights

Missing resort data remain eligible: unavailable evidence is omitted and confidence falls instead of the resort receiving a zero.

More comparison optionsTrip context · direct add · display
Fit = structural suitabilityNow = current opportunityDecision combines both when timing makes current conditions relevant
How Benchmark works

Priorities determine the structural ranking; optional trip context refines those priorities without excluding a resort. Evidence describes data support, Stability tests nearby priority changes, and Frontier marks a non-dominated option on comparable evidence.

Trip contextOptional

Use these only when they matter for this trip. They adjust ranking and interpretation; they are not hidden filters.

Travel origin is preserved with the decision state; access scoring uses the selected arrival hub when one is chosen.
Display options
Comparison sections
Decision horizon
Recommendation

Decision summary

Chamonix is the strongest match 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. San Sicario is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Narrow lead

Chamonix

75/100
Why
  1. Chamonix is the strongest match 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. San Sicario is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 19 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 142 cm.
AlternativeSan Sicario
Main uncertaintyMost 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.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 19 h ago5.3 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Chamonix

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choiceNarrow lead

Leads on 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.

Why Chamonix leads San Sicario Terrain fit +4.5 pts and Snow now +3.9 pts
Terrain fit +4.5Snow now +3.9Snow reliability -2.3Access -0.8
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeSan Sicario

Main uncertaintyMost of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 2 and San Sicario becomes the leading option.

Lead margin5.3pts

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 frontier5 options

5 options are 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.

Lift systemSan Sicario

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 2 and San Sicario becomes the leading option.

14 → 2
ScaleSan Sicario

Increase scale weight from 16 to 90 and San Sicario becomes the leading option.

16 → 90
SnowBreuil Cervinia

Increase snow weight from 24 to 98 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

24 → 98
Why Chamonix leads San Sicario · 5.3 pts
Lift system+5.8 pts
Current opportunity+3.9 pts
Snow-2.3 pts
Scale-1.7 pts
Access-0.8 pts
Family & value+0.4 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

Decision75/100
Fit82/100
Now29/100
Quality6.0/10
Now29142 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 Now28.714% weight Decision74.7/100
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 snow142 cm 20.3 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow97 cm 4.6 / 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+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 109% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.
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..

San Sicario

#2 · La Voie Lactee · Italy

Decision69/100
Fit69/100
Now0/100
Quality9.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7070/100Terrain6767/100Access8076 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.

Fit69.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision69.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow70/100 · 73% evidence 16.9 / 24.0 pts
Terrain75/100 · 80% evidence 16.4 / 22.0 pts
Scale96/100 · 85% evidence 15.3 / 16.0 pts
Lift system24/100 · 68% evidence 3.4 / 14.0 pts
Access80/100 · 68% evidence 9.6 / 12.0 pts
Family & value65/100 · 41% evidence 7.8 / 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 · 72/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area400 km · 1,251 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m65%Best transfer76 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 67/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 70/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision65/100
Fit75/100
Now25/100
Quality9.2/10
Now25100 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.

Fit75.478% weight Now25.022% weight Decision64.5/100
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 snow100 cm 10.0 / 30.0 pts
Open terrain7% 1.4 / 20.0 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 16.0 pts
Valley snow19 cm 1.7 / 16.0 pts
Snow quality9.6/10 9.6 / 10.0 pts
Mid-mountain snow68 cm 2.3 / 8.0 pts

Data coverage: 100%

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 20% 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.

Lofsdalen

#5 · Lofsdalen · Sweden

Decision53/100
Fit53/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4040/100Terrain5858/100
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.

Fit52.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision52.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow40/100 · 37% evidence 10.9 / 27.3 pts
Terrain52/100 · 44% evidence 13.1 / 25.0 pts
Scale56/100 · 100% evidence 10.1 / 18.2 pts
Lift system47/100 · 68% evidence 7.5 / 15.9 pts
Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.3 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 49%

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 · 60/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area27 km · 492 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 40/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Todtmoos

#6 · Todtmoos · Germany

Decision53/100
Fit53/100
Now0/100
Quality3.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3333/100Terrain5757/100Access7257 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.

Fit52.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision52.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow33/100 · 37% evidence 7.9 / 24.0 pts
Terrain58/100 · 52% evidence 12.7 / 22.0 pts
Scale40/100 · 85% evidence 6.4 / 16.0 pts
Lift system40/100 · 8% evidence 5.6 / 14.0 pts
Access72/100 · 68% evidence 8.7 / 12.0 pts
Family & value95/100 · 28% evidence 11.4 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 47%

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 · 62/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area7 km · 700 m verticalBest transfer57 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 57/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 33/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Grunten

#7 · Grunten · Germany

Decision50/100
Fit50/100
Now0/100
Quality4.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3737/100Terrain5454/100
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.

Fit49.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision49.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow37/100 · 37% evidence 10.1 / 27.3 pts
Terrain49/100 · 52% evidence 12.1 / 25.0 pts
Scale60/100 · 100% evidence 10.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system62/100 · 8% evidence 9.9 / 15.9 pts
Family & value48/100 · 41% evidence 6.5 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 42%

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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useAdvanced skiing · 50/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area17 km · 800 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 37/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Bad Leonfelden

#8 · Bad Leonfelden · Austria

Decision44/100
Fit44/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2929/100Terrain5050/100Access42107 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.

Fit43.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision43.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow29/100 · 36% evidence 6.9 / 24.0 pts
Terrain51/100 · 28% evidence 11.3 / 22.0 pts
Scale28/100 · 58% evidence 4.5 / 16.0 pts
Lift system68/100 · 68% evidence 9.6 / 14.0 pts
Access42/100 · 68% evidence 5.0 / 12.0 pts
Family & value53/100 · 41% evidence 6.4 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 47%

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 typeLifts-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 46/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area5 km · – verticalBest transfer107 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 50/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 29/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Olpe

#9 · Olpe · Germany

Decision33/100
Fit33/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability1515/100Terrain3939/100
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.

Fit32.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision32.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow15/100 · 37% evidence 4.1 / 27.3 pts
Terrain42/100 · 44% evidence 10.6 / 25.0 pts
Scale14/100 · 85% evidence 2.5 / 18.2 pts
Lift system22/100 · 8% evidence 3.5 / 15.9 pts
Family & value88/100 · 41% evidence 11.9 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 38%

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 · 45/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area2 km · 93 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 39/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 15/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Grafenau

#10 · Grafenau · Germany

Decision32/100
Fit32/100
Now0/100
Quality2.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability1313/100Terrain3939/100
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.

Fit31.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision31.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow13/100 · 37% evidence 3.6 / 27.3 pts
Terrain42/100 · 52% evidence 10.6 / 25.0 pts
Scale17/100 · 85% evidence 3.1 / 18.2 pts
Lift system4/100 · 8% evidence 0.7 / 15.9 pts
Family & value100/100 · 28% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 38%

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 · 47/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area2 km · 210 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 39/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 13/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

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.

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible
AttributeChamonixChamonix ValleySan SicarioLa Voie LacteeBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalLofsdalenLofsdalenTodtmoosTodtmoosGruntenGruntenBad LeonfeldenBad LeonfeldenOlpeOlpeGrafenauGrafenau
Assessment
Decision score 75/100clear advantage69/10065/10064/10053/10053/10050/10044/10033/10032/100
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage69/10075/10064/10053/10053/10050/10044/10033/10032/100
Current opportunity 29/1000/10025/1000/1000/1000/1000/1000/1000/1000/100
Overall quality 6.0/109.0/109.2/108.7/10–3.0/104.0/10––2.0/10
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10065/10076/10078/10066/10022/10026/10036/10032/10023/100
Typical daytime high 3°C0°C-2°C1°C-3°C4°C4°C3°C4°C3°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-7°C-7°C-6°C-9°C-1°C-3°C-4°C-3°C-4°C
Rating 8.1/106.8/108.1/107.4/106.1/10–7.4/105.6/106.1/10–
Area size class 150–250 km250+ km250+ km100–150 km20–50 km20 km or less20 km or less20 km or less20 km or less20 km or less
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedadvancedintermediateintermediateadvancedadvancedadvancedadvanced
Price class highlowhighhigh–avgavglowlowavg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km400 kmclear advantage322 km142 km27 km7 km17 km5 km2 km2 km
Lowest point 1,000 m1,538 m1,562 m1,472 m633 m900 m900 m–500 m500 m
Highest point 3,842 m2,789 m3,899 m3,573 m1,125 m1,600 m1,700 m1,102 m593 m710 m
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage1,251 m2,337 m2,101 m492 m700 m800 m–93 m210 m
Blue pistes 34%24%23%22%62%57%13%20%50%50%
Red pistes 44%55%68%62%27%29%88%80%50%50%
Black pistes 22%21%8%16%11%14%0%0%0%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%65%92%clear advantage57%––––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%21%clear advantage0%––––––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10091/10074/10084/10081/10087/10054/10072/100100/100100/100
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage37/10051/10068/100––––––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage3%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 above typical+109% vs average · 92th percentile–Below typical-20% vs average · 23th percentile–––––––
Valley snow versus typical ––Below typical-41% vs average · 57th percentile–––––––
Open slopes versus typical ––Close to typical-21% vs average · 45th percentile–––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm–19 cm–––––––
Mid-mountain snow 97 cmclear advantage–68 cm–––––––
Mountain snow 142 cmclear advantage–100 cm–––––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality ––9.6/10–––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––7%–––––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km254 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km466 pph/km––870 pph/kmclear advantage––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.19×0.28×0.28×0.30×––0.40×––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift5.8 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift2.9 km/lift1.4 km/lift2.1 km/lift1.7 km/lift0.7 km/lift2.0 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 3°C2°C-8°C4°C1°C4°C1°C4°C5°C4°C
Maximum temperature 12°C9°C-5°C11°C5°C14°C8°C9°C6°C11°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –family–family––––––
Piste variety slopesslopesslopesslopes––––––
Off-piste offpisteoffpisteoffpiste–––––––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network ––liftslifts––––––
Mountain restaurants ––restaurantsrestaurants––––––
Après-ski ––apresskiapresski––––––
Public transport transittransittransit––transit––––
Best airport transfer 63 min76 min104 min441 min–57 min–107 min––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer316 km/h transferclear advantage186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–7 km/h transfer–3 km/h transfer––