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

Reigoldswil is the strongest match because of exceptional access match · 100/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.

Recommendation limited by evidence

Reigoldswil

100/100

Why

Reigoldswil is the strongest match because of exceptional access match · 100/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated just now

Strong overall decision score (100/100).

Evidence coverage is limited; the ranking may move with new observations.

AlternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintyLimited evidence is available. Missing enriched fields are omitted rather than scored as zero.

Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.

Open webcams Show on map Inspect forecast

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Reigoldswil

Access-led destinationLimited evidence

Leads on exceptional access match · 100/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence.

Why Reigoldswil leads Chamonix Access +89.8 pts

Access +89.8Terrain fit -54.9Snow reliability -16.9

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

Strongest alternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintyLimited evidence is available. Missing enriched fields are omitted rather than scored as zero.

What could change the resultReduce access weight from 12 to 0 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin18.1pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence17%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier5 options

2 options are dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Lowest-regret optionChamonix · 94% robustness

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.

AccessChamonix

Reduce access weight from 12 to 0 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 0

Why Reigoldswil leads Chamonix · 18.1 pts

Access+89.8 pts

Terrain-19.0 pts

Snow-16.9 pts

Scale-15.7 pts

Lift system-10.7 pts

Family & value-9.5 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.

Reigoldswil

#1 · · Switzerland

Decision100/100

Fit100/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Access10033 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.

Fit100.0100% weight Now–0% weight Decision100.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Access100/100 · 48% evidence 100.0 / 100.0 pts

Family & valueNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

ScaleNo data excluded

SnowNo data excluded

TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 6%

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 typeAccess-led destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalBest transfer33 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected date

Strengths

Exceptional access match · 100/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence..
Access is the strongest available structural dimension.

Consider

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

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision82/100

Fit82/100

Now–/100

Quality6.0/10

Reliability7171/100Terrain8686/100Access8563 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.

Fit81.9100% weight Now–0% weight Decision81.9/100

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.

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 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..

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision75/100

Fit75/100

Now–/100

Quality9.2/10

Reliability9494/100Terrain7171/100Access61104 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.

Fit75.4100% weight Now–0% weight Decision75.4/100

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.

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 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+ m

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.

Crans sur Sierre

#4 · Crans Montana · Switzerland

Decision67/100

Fit67/100

Now–/100

Quality6.9/10

Reliability7171/100Terrain6666/100

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.

Fit67.1100% weight Now–0% weight Decision67.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow71/100 · 73% evidence 19.3 / 27.3 pts

Terrain71/100 · 80% evidence 17.8 / 25.0 pts

Scale86/100 · 100% evidence 15.6 / 18.2 pts

Lift system22/100 · 68% evidence 3.5 / 15.9 pts

Family & value80/100 · 41% evidence 10.9 / 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 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 69/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area140 km · 1,417 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m55%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Saas

#5 · Saastal · Switzerland

Decision64/100

Fit64/100

Now–/100

Quality8.7/10

Reliability7474/100Terrain7070/100Access10441 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 Now–0% 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 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 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.

Unteriberg

#6 · Hoch Ybrig · Switzerland

Decision59/100

Fit59/100

Now–/100

Quality8.2/10

Reliability4444/100Terrain6060/100Access8852 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.

Fit59.4100% weight Now–0% weight Decision59.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow44/100 · 73% evidence 10.4 / 24.0 pts

Terrain64/100 · 80% evidence 14.0 / 22.0 pts

Scale78/100 · 100% evidence 12.5 / 16.0 pts

Lift system27/100 · 68% evidence 3.8 / 14.0 pts

Access88/100 · 68% evidence 10.5 / 12.0 pts

Family & value67/100 · 41% evidence 8.1 / 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.

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 typeAccess-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 60/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area50 km · 791 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer52 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 60/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Rigi Scheidegg

#7 · Rigi Scheidegg · Switzerland

Decision57/100

Fit57/100

Now–/100

Quality5.0/10

Reliability4949/100Terrain6161/100

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.

Fit57.3100% weight Now–0% weight Decision57.3/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow49/100 · 37% evidence 13.3 / 27.3 pts

Terrain53/100 · 52% evidence 13.2 / 25.0 pts

Scale38/100 · 100% evidence 6.9 / 18.2 pts

Lift system79/100 · 68% evidence 12.5 / 15.9 pts

Family & value84/100 · 41% evidence 11.5 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 51%

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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 66/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area9 km · 437 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 61/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 49/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Turnau

#8 · Turnau · Austria

Decision48/100

Fit48/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Reliability3030/100Terrain5555/100

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.

Fit48.4100% weight Now–0% weight Decision48.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow30/100 · 36% evidence 8.2 / 27.3 pts

Terrain92/100 · 28% evidence 22.9 / 25.0 pts

Scale43/100 · 58% evidence 7.8 / 18.2 pts

Lift system22/100 · 8% evidence 3.5 / 15.9 pts

Family & value44/100 · 41% evidence 6.0 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 30%

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 typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 60/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area11 km · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 55/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 30/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Ossiach

#9 · · Austria

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.

Escholzmatt

#10 · · Switzerland

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.

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	ReigoldswilSwitzerland	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	Crans sur SierreCrans Montana	SaasSaastal	UnteribergHoch Ybrig	Rigi ScheideggRigi Scheidegg	TurnauTurnau	OssiachAustria	EscholzmattSwitzerland
Assessment
Decision score	100/100clear advantage	82/100	75/100	67/100	64/100	59/100	57/100	48/100	–	–
Structural Fit	100/100clear advantage	82/100	75/100	67/100	64/100	59/100	57/100	48/100	–	–
Current opportunity	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Overall quality	–	6.0/10	9.2/10clear advantage	6.9/10	8.7/10	8.2/10	5.0/10	–	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	–	68/100	76/100	74/100	78/100	52/100	47/100	52/100	–	–
Typical daytime high	–	3°C	-2°Cclear advantage	3°C	1°C	3°C	2°C	4°C	–	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	–	-4°C	-7°C	-5°C	-6°C	-4°C	-4°C	-4°C	–	–
Rating	–	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.6/10	7.4/10	6.6/10	5.0/10	4.9/10	–	–
Area size class	–	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km	100–150 km	20–50 km	20 km or less	20 km or less	–	–
Ability profile	–	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	expert	–	–
Price class	–	high	high	avg	high	high	high	low	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	–	175 km	322 kmclear advantage	140 km	142 km	50 km	9 km	11 km	–	–
Lowest point	–	1,000 m	1,562 m	1,510 m	1,472 m	1,040 m	1,315 m	–	–	–
Highest point	–	3,842 m	3,899 m	2,927 m	3,573 m	1,831 m	1,752 m	850 m	–	–
Vertical range	–	2,842 mclear advantage	2,337 m	1,417 m	2,101 m	791 m	437 m	–	–	–
Blue pistes	–	34%	23%	39%	22%	30%	50%	10%	–	–
Red pistes	–	44%	68%	50%	62%	60%	50%	60%	–	–
Black pistes	–	22%	8%	11%	16%	10%	0%	30%clear advantage	–	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	55%	92%clear advantage	55%	57%	0%	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	0%	0%	–	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	–	97/100	74/100	87/100	84/100	82/100	100/100	82/100	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	–	86/100clear advantage	51/100	47/100	68/100	39/100	–	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	21%clear advantage	6%	5%	2%	4%	–	–	–	–
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	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Fresh snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow quality	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	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	298 pph/km	241 pph/km	289 pph/km	291 pph/km	722 pph/kmclear advantage	–	–	–
Lift-system coverage	–	0.48×	0.28×	0.20×	0.28×	0.22×	2.23×clear advantage	–	–	–
Terrain per lift	–	2.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	7.4 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	4.2 km/lift	1.3 km/lift	3.7 km/lift	–	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	3°C	2°C	-4°C	-3°C	0°C	2°C	0°C	1°C	3°C	0°C
Maximum temperature	9°C	10°C	7°C	9°C	7°C	8°C	4°C	8°C	11°C	6°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–	–	family	family	family	–	–	–	–
Piste variety	–	slopes	slopes	slopes	slopes	–	–	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	offpiste	offpiste	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	lifts	–	lifts	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	restaurants	restaurants	restaurants	–	–	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	apresski	–	apresski	–	–	–	–	–
Public transport	–	transit	transit	–	–	transit	–	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	33 min	63 min	104 min	–	441 min	52 min	–	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	166 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	–	19 km/h transfer	58 km/h transfer	–	–	–	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Reigoldswil

Reigoldswil

Resort overview

Reigoldswil

Chamonix

Breuil Cervinia

Crans sur Sierre

Saas

Unteriberg

Rigi Scheidegg

Turnau

Ossiach

Escholzmatt

Detailed comparison