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

Champagny en Vanoise is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 82/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, exceptional reliability match · 89/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Narrow lead

Champagny en Vanoise

83/100
Why
  1. Champagny en Vanoise is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 82/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, exceptional reliability match · 89/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.
Limited evidenceUpdated 15 h ago
  • Strong overall decision score (83/100).

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

AlternativeChamonix
Main uncertaintyMost of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.
Limited evidenceUpdated 15 h ago5.6 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Champagny en Vanoise

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choiceNarrow lead

Leads on strong terrain match · 82/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, exceptional reliability match · 89/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Champagny en Vanoise leads Chamonix Snow reliability +6.9 pts and Terrain fit +5.3 pts
Snow reliability +6.9Snow now -6.7Terrain fit +5.3Access +0.1
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChamonix

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

What could change the resultIf terrain receives about 50% more weight, Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin5.6pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.

Evidence confidence75%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier4 options

2 options are dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Why Champagny en Vanoise leads Chamonix · 5.6 pts
Snow+6.9 pts
Current opportunity-6.7 pts
Family & value+2.4 pts
Scale+2.3 pts
Terrain+0.3 pts
Lift system+0.3 pts

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

Priority sensitivity · what can change the winner?
TerrainChamonix

If terrain receives about 50% more weight, Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Immediate conditionsChamonix

If immediate snow and opening conditions dominate the decision, Chamonix becomes the stronger option.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

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

Champagny en Vanoise

#1 · Paradiski · France

Decision83/100
Fit83/100
Now0/100
Quality8.8/10
Now00 cm freshReliability8989/100Terrain8282/100Access7484 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.

Fit83.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision83.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow89/100 · 73% evidence 21.5 / 24.0 pts
Terrain76/100 · 80% evidence 16.7 / 22.0 pts
Scale99/100 · 85% evidence 15.9 / 16.0 pts
Lift system68/100 · 68% evidence 9.5 / 14.0 pts
Access74/100 · 68% evidence 8.9 / 12.0 pts
Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 10.6 / 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 useSnow-first trips · 85/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area425 km · 2,026 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m64%Best transfer84 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 82/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Exceptional reliability match · 89/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Chamonix

#2 · 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..

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.

Collet dAllevard

#5 · Le Collet dAllevard · France

Decision57/100
Fit57/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5757/100Terrain5858/100
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.

Fit57.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow57/100 · 37% evidence 15.4 / 27.3 pts
Terrain55/100 · 44% evidence 13.7 / 25.0 pts
Scale64/100 · 100% evidence 11.6 / 18.2 pts
Lift system33/100 · 68% evidence 5.3 / 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 · 62/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area35 km · 690 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 57/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Aeschi

#6 · Aeschi · Switzerland

Decision42/100
Fit42/100
Now0/100
Quality2.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2626/100Terrain4343/100Access7137 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.

Fit42.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision42.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow26/100 · 73% evidence 6.3 / 24.0 pts
Terrain11/100 · 67% evidence 2.4 / 22.0 pts
Scale7/100 · 100% evidence 1.2 / 16.0 pts
Lift system84/100 · 68% evidence 11.7 / 14.0 pts
Access71/100 · 68% evidence 8.5 / 12.0 pts
Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 12.0 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 68%

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 · 61/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area0 km · 30 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer37 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 43/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 26/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Chemnitz

#7 · Chemnitz · Germany

Decision8/100
Fit8/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2525/100Terrain00/100
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.

Fit8.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision8.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow25/100 · 36% evidence 8.2 / 32.4 pts
Terrain0/100 · 15% evidence 0.0 / 29.7 pts
Scale1/100 · 58% evidence 0.1 / 21.6 pts
Family & value0/100 · 18% evidence 0.0 / 16.2 pts
AccessNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded

Data coverage: 23%

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 typeSnow-led destinationSnow reliabilityModerateSki area0 km · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 0/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 25/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Angon

#8 · · France

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.

Euthal

#9 · · 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.

Colditz

#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 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.

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible
AttributeChampagny en VanoiseParadiskiChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalCollet dAllevardLe Collet dAllevardAeschiAeschiChemnitzChemnitzAngonFranceEuthalSwitzerlandColditzGermany
Assessment
Decision score 83/100clear advantage77/10068/10064/10057/10042/1008/100–––
Structural Fit 83/10082/10075/10064/10057/10042/1008/100–––
Current opportunity 0/10049/100clear advantage20/1000/1000/1000/1000/100–––
Overall quality 8.8/106.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/10–2.0/10––––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumLowMediumLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 85/10068/10076/10078/10040/10017/10056/100–––
Typical daytime high 2°C3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C4°C4°C4°C–––
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -5°C-4°C-7°C-6°C-3°C-3°C-2°C–––
Rating 7.5/108.1/108.1/107.4/106.2/10–––––
Area size class 250+ km150–250 km250+ km100–150 km20–50 km20 km or less20km or less–––
Ability profile intermediateadvancedadvancedadvancednovicenovice––––
Price class highhighhighhighavghighlow–––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 425 kmclear advantage175 km322 km142 km35 km0 km0 km–––
Lowest point 1,200 m1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m1,450 m860 m––––
Highest point 3,226 m3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m2,140 m890 m460 m–––
Vertical range 2,026 m2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m690 m30 m––––
Blue pistes 57%34%23%22%57%100%0%–––
Red pistes 30%44%68%62%37%0%0%–––
Black pistes 12%22%clear advantage8%16%6%0%0%–––
Terrain above 2,000 m 64%55%92%clear advantage57%–0%––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 1%0%21%clear advantage0%–0%––––
Piste-mix diversity 86/10097/100clear advantage74/10084/10077/100–––––
Slope-angle diversity 57/10086/100clear advantage51/10068/100–8/100––––
Very/extremely steep terrain 6%21%clear advantage6%2%–0%––––
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 cm19 cm–––––––
Mid-mountain snow –167 cmclear advantage68 cm–––––––
Mountain snow –259 cmclear advantage101 cm–––––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–––
Snow quality ––––––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––––––––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 553 pph/km556 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km389 pph/km1,667 pph/kmclear advantage––––
Lift-system coverage 0.28×0.48×0.28×0.28×0.21×1.00×clear advantage––––
Terrain per lift 3.4 km/lift2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift3.2 km/lift0.3 km/lift––––
Weather
Minimum temperature 7°C8°C3°C4°C10°C11°C7°C12°C10°C8°C
Maximum temperature 16°C17°C14°C13°C15°C17°C11°C21°C16°C15°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability family––family––––––
Piste variety slopesslopesslopesslopes––––––
Off-piste offpisteoffpisteoffpiste–––––––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network lifts–liftslifts––––––
Mountain restaurants restaurants–restaurantsrestaurants––––––
Après-ski apresski–apresskiapresski––––––
Public transport transittransittransit––transit––––
Best airport transfer 84 min63 min104 min441 min–37 minclear advantage––––
Skiing per transfer hour 304 km/h transferclear advantage166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–0 km/h transfer––––