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.

Selected7 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.

7 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

La Thuile narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 75/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

La Thuile

78/100
Why
  1. La Thuile narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 75/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 13 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (81/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 229 cm.
AlternativeChamonix
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Chamonix 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.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 13 h ago2.9 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

La Thuile

Large-domain explorerEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 75/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why La Thuile leads Chamonix Snow now +3.8 pts and Snow reliability +0.9 pts
Snow now +3.8Access -1.9Snow reliability +0.9Terrain fit 0.0
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChamonix

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

What could change the resultIncrease access weight from 12 to 36 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin2.9pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence68%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier3 options

3 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

Increase access weight from 12 to 36 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 36
TerrainChamonix

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 79 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

22 → 79
Why La Thuile leads Chamonix · 2.9 pts
Current opportunity+3.8 pts
Lift system+2.1 pts
Terrain-1.9 pts
Access-1.9 pts
Snow+0.9 pts
Scale-0.3 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.

La Thuile

#1 · San Bernardo La Rosiere · Italy

Decision78/100
Fit81/100
Now57/100
Quality9.5/10
Now57229 cm upperReliability7575/100Terrain8686/100Access67100 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.

Fit80.886% weight Now56.614% weight Decision77.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow75/100 · 73% evidence 17.9 / 24.0 pts
Terrain77/100 · 80% evidence 16.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale96/100 · 100% evidence 15.4 / 16.0 pts
Lift system93/100 · 8% evidence 13.1 / 14.0 pts
Access67/100 · 68% evidence 8.0 / 12.0 pts
Family & value80/100 · 41% evidence 9.6 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 65%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow229 cm 32.7 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow119 cm 15.1 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow185 cm 8.8 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 81/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area143 km · 1,610 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m75%Best transfer100 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 86% 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; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 75/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Chamonix

#2 · 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 Decision74.6/100
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..

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision64/100
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 Decision64.4/100
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.

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.

Volda

#5 · Volda · Norway

Decision36/100
Fit36/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2020/100Terrain4242/100
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.

Fit36.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision36.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow20/100 · 37% evidence 5.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain49/100 · 44% evidence 12.2 / 25.0 pts
Scale34/100 · 100% evidence 6.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system9/100 · 68% evidence 1.5 / 15.9 pts
Family & value79/100 · 41% evidence 10.8 / 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 · 44/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area8 km · 340 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 42/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 20/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Valprato Soana

#6 · Valprato Soana · Italy

Decision30/100
Fit30/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2828/100Terrain3131/100
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.

Fit29.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision29.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow28/100 · 37% evidence 7.7 / 27.3 pts
Terrain3/100 · 31% evidence 0.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale8/100 · 85% evidence 1.5 / 18.2 pts
Lift system40/100 · 8% evidence 6.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 33%

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 useSnow-first trips · 30/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area1 km · 88 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 31/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 28/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

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
AttributeLa ThuileSan Bernardo La RosiereChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalVoldaVoldaValprato SoanaValprato SoanaSchwarzenbach an der SaaleGermany
Assessment
Decision score 78/10075/10064/10064/10036/10030/100–
Structural Fit 81/10082/10075/10064/10036/10030/100–
Current opportunity 57/100clear advantage29/10025/1000/1000/1000/100–
Overall quality 9.5/10clear advantage6.0/109.2/108.7/10–––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 87/100clear advantage68/10076/10078/10043/1000/100–
Typical daytime high 1°C3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C2°C14°C–
Typical snow/freezing level –––––––
Typical overnight low -5°C-4°C-7°C-6°C-4°C6°C–
Rating 7.6/108.1/108.1/107.4/104.8/10––
Area size class 100–150 km150–250 km250+ km100–150 km20 km or less20 km or less–
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedadvancedintermediatenovice–
Price class avghighhighhigh–––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 143 km175 km322 kmclear advantage142 km8 km1 km–
Lowest point 1,190 m1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m319 m1,550 m–
Highest point 2,800 m3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m659 m1,638 m–
Vertical range 1,610 m2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m340 m88 m–
Blue pistes 39%34%23%22%63%100%–
Red pistes 49%44%68%62%25%0%–
Black pistes 12%22%clear advantage8%16%13%0%–
Terrain above 2,000 m 75%55%92%clear advantage57%–––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%21%clear advantage0%–––
Piste-mix diversity 88/10097/100clear advantage74/10084/10082/100––
Slope-angle diversity 47/10086/100clear advantage51/10068/100–––
Very/extremely steep terrain 5%21%clear advantage6%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+86% vs average · 100th percentileWell above typical+109% vs average · 92th percentileBelow typical-20% vs average · 23th percentile––––
Valley snow versus typical Well above typical+226% vs average · 100th percentile–Below typical-41% vs average · 57th percentile––––
Open slopes versus typical ––Close to typical-21% vs average · 45th percentile––––
Current snow
Valley snow 119 cmclear advantage30 cm19 cm––––
Mid-mountain snow 185 cmclear advantage97 cm68 cm––––
Mountain snow 229 cmclear advantage142 cm100 cm––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–
Snow quality ––9.6/10––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––7%––––
Open lifts –––––––
Lift capacity per piste km –556 pph/kmclear advantage298 pph/km289 pph/km188 pph/km––
Lift-system coverage –0.48×clear advantage0.28×0.28×0.19×––
Terrain per lift 3.9 km/lift2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift2.7 km/lift0.2 km/lift–
Weather
Minimum temperature 1°C3°C-8°C-1°C2°C–1°C
Maximum temperature 9°C12°C-5°C8°C9°C–5°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –––family–––
Piste variety –slopesslopesslopes–––
Off-piste –offpisteoffpiste––––
Cross-country –––––––
Lift network ––liftslifts–––
Mountain restaurants ––restaurantsrestaurants–––
Après-ski ––apresskiapresski–––
Public transport transittransittransit––––
Best airport transfer 100 min63 minclear advantage104 min441 min–––
Skiing per transfer hour 86 km/h transfer166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–––