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.

Selected4 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Val di Sole is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, strong reliability match · 80/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Val di Sole

79/100

Why

Val di Sole is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, strong reliability match · 80/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 12 h ago

Strong overall decision score (79/100).

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

AlternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

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

Val di Sole

Lift-system performerEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, strong reliability match · 80/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Val di Sole leads Chamonix Terrain fit +10.2 pts and Snow reliability +7.2 pts

Terrain fit +10.2Access -8.8Snow reliability +7.2Snow now -4.0

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

Strongest alternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultIncrease scale weight from 16 to 37 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin4.7pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 2–2.

Evidence confidence47%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier3 options

1 option is 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.

ScaleChamonix

Increase scale weight from 16 to 37 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

16 → 37

Why Val di Sole leads Chamonix · 4.7 pts

Access-8.8 pts

Snow+7.2 pts

Terrain+5.6 pts

Lift system+4.7 pts

Current opportunity-4.0 pts

Scale-1.4 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.

Val di Sole

#1 · Val di Sole · Italy

Decision79/100

Fit79/100

Now0/100

Quality7.8/10

Now00 cm freshReliability8080/100Terrain7979/100

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.

Fit79.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision79.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow80/100 · 37% evidence 21.8 / 27.3 pts

Terrain88/100 · 52% evidence 22.0 / 25.0 pts

Scale67/100 · 85% evidence 12.1 / 18.2 pts

Lift system87/100 · 8% evidence 13.9 / 15.9 pts

Family & value70/100 · 41% evidence 9.5 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 40%

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 typeLift-system performerBest useAdvanced skiing · 81/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area16 km · 1,816 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Strong reliability match · 80/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Scale trails the selected-set median by 31 points.

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision75/100

Fit82/100

Now29/100

Quality6.0/10

Now29145 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 Now29.214% 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 snow145 cm 20.7 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow99 cm 4.7 / 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 146% 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..

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision64/100

Fit75/100

Now23/100

Quality9.2/10

Now2380 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 Now22.622% weight Decision63.9/100

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 snow80 cm 8.0 / 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 snow56 cm 1.9 / 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 36% 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.

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	Val di SoleVal di Sole	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal
Assessment
Decision score	79/100clear advantage	75/100	64/100	64/100
Structural Fit	79/100	82/100	75/100	64/100
Current opportunity	0/100	29/100clear advantage	23/100	0/100
Overall quality	7.8/10	6.0/10	9.2/10clear advantage	8.7/10
Recommendation confidence	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	65/100	68/100	76/100	78/100
Typical daytime high	4°C	3°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-3°C	-4°C	-7°C	-6°C
Rating	6.7/10	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.4/10
Area size class	20 km or less	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km
Ability profile	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced
Price class	avg	high	high	high
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	16 km	175 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km
Lowest point	1,200 m	1,000 m	1,562 m	1,472 m
Highest point	3,016 m	3,842 m	3,899 m	3,573 m
Vertical range	1,816 m	2,842 mclear advantage	2,337 m	2,101 m
Blue pistes	29%	34%	23%	22%
Red pistes	49%	44%	68%	62%
Black pistes	22%	22%	8%	16%
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	55%	92%clear advantage	57%
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	0%	21%clear advantage	0%
Piste-mix diversity	95/100	97/100	74/100	84/100
Slope-angle diversity	–	86/100clear advantage	51/100	68/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	21%clear advantage	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+146% vs average · 100th percentile	Well below typical-36% vs average · 4th percentile	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	Below typical-40% vs average · 58th percentile	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	Close to typical-20% vs average · 50th percentile	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	30 cm	19 cm	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	99 cmclear advantage	56 cm	–
Mountain snow	–	145 cmclear advantage	80 cm	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Snow quality	–	–	9.6/10	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	7%	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	556 pph/kmclear advantage	298 pph/km	289 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	–	0.48×clear advantage	0.28×	0.28×
Terrain per lift	0.9 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	7°C	5°C	-7°C	2°C
Maximum temperature	18°C	12°C	-4°C	7°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–	–	family
Piste variety	–	slopes	slopes	slopes
Off-piste	offpiste	offpiste	offpiste	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	lifts	lifts
Mountain restaurants	–	–	restaurants	restaurants
Après-ski	–	–	apresski	apresski
Public transport	–	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

Val di Sole

Val di Sole

Resort overview

Val di Sole

Chamonix

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Detailed comparison