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. Golm is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 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. Golm is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 18 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 142 cm.
AlternativeGolm
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 18 h ago5.6 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 Golm Access +8.8 pts and Snow now +3.9 pts
Access +8.8Terrain fit -6.4Snow now +3.9Snow reliability -0.6
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeGolm

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

What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 54 and Golm 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 1–1.

Evidence confidence73%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

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

Family & valueGolm

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 54 and Golm becomes the leading option.

12 → 54
Lift systemMonte San Primo

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 88 and Monte San Primo becomes the leading option.

14 → 88
SnowBreuil Cervinia

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

24 → 98
Why Chamonix leads Golm · 5.6 pts
Access+8.8 pts
Current opportunity+3.9 pts
Family & value-3.4 pts
Terrain-1.6 pts
Lift system-0.8 pts
Snow-0.6 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 Decision74.6/100
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..

Golm

#2 · Golm im Montafon · Austria

Decision69/100
Fit69/100
Now0/100
Quality8.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5656/100Terrain7474/100
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.

Fit69.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision69.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow56/100 · 37% evidence 15.2 / 27.3 pts
Terrain72/100 · 52% evidence 18.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale78/100 · 100% evidence 14.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system63/100 · 68% evidence 10.0 / 15.9 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 11.6 / 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 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 · 72/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area27 km · 1,450 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 56/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

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

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.

Veitsch

#5 · Veitsch · Austria

Decision57/100
Fit57/100
Now0/100
Quality4.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4343/100Terrain6262/100
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.

Fit57.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow43/100 · 37% evidence 11.8 / 27.3 pts
Terrain57/100 · 52% evidence 14.4 / 25.0 pts
Scale45/100 · 100% evidence 8.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system62/100 · 68% evidence 9.8 / 15.9 pts
Family & value95/100 · 28% evidence 12.9 / 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 · 67/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area11 km · 386 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 43/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Pila

#6 · Pila · Italy

Decision56/100
Fit63/100
Now13/100
Quality6.2/10
Now1350 cm upperReliability7070/100Terrain6363/100Access47118 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.

Fit62.686% weight Now12.814% weight Decision55.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow70/100 · 73% evidence 16.7 / 24.0 pts
Terrain67/100 · 80% evidence 14.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale80/100 · 100% evidence 12.8 / 16.0 pts
Lift system45/100 · 68% evidence 6.3 / 14.0 pts
Access47/100 · 68% evidence 5.6 / 12.0 pts
Family & value54/100 · 41% evidence 6.5 / 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 snow50 cm 7.1 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow29 cm 3.7 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow42 cm 2.0 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 65/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area70 km · 1,200 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m73%Best transfer118 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 63/100 — 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.

Monte San Primo

#7 · Monte San Primo · Italy

Decision55/100
Fit55/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3030/100Terrain6464/100
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.

Fit54.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision54.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow30/100 · 37% evidence 8.2 / 27.3 pts
Terrain69/100 · 44% evidence 17.3 / 25.0 pts
Scale28/100 · 85% evidence 5.0 / 18.2 pts
Lift system94/100 · 8% evidence 15.0 / 15.9 pts
Family & value66/100 · 28% evidence 9.0 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 37%

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 useFamily trips · 59/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area4 km · 400 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 64/100 — 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.

Schattwald

#8 · Zoblen Schattwald · Austria

Decision52/100
Fit52/100
Now0/100
Quality6.8/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3939/100Terrain6060/100Access39115 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.

Fit52.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision52.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow39/100 · 73% evidence 9.4 / 24.0 pts
Terrain54/100 · 80% evidence 11.9 / 22.0 pts
Scale45/100 · 100% evidence 7.2 / 16.0 pts
Lift system61/100 · 68% evidence 8.6 / 14.0 pts
Access39/100 · 68% evidence 4.7 / 12.0 pts
Family & value87/100 · 41% evidence 10.5 / 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 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 · 59/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area8 km · 475 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer115 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 60/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 39/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Hohe Scheibe

#9 · Hohe Scheibe · Italy

Decision49/100
Fit49/100
Now35/100
Quality–/10
Now350 cm freshReliability4949/100
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.

Fit49.1100% weight Now34.60% weight Decision49.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow49/100 · 18% evidence 49.1 / 100.0 pts
AccessNo data excluded
Family & valueNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded
ScaleNo data excluded
TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 4%

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 / 61.5 pts
Snow quality9.0/10 34.6 / 38.5 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 26%

Destination typeSnow-led destinationSnow reliabilityMarginalSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected date
Strengths
  • Mixed reliability match · 49/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
  • Snow is the strongest available structural dimension.
Consider

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

Marul

#10 · Sonntag · Austria

Decision49/100
Fit49/100
Now0/100
Quality3.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3939/100Terrain5252/100
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.

Fit48.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision48.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow39/100 · 73% evidence 10.6 / 27.3 pts
Terrain47/100 · 80% evidence 11.7 / 25.0 pts
Scale42/100 · 100% evidence 7.6 / 18.2 pts
Lift system46/100 · 68% evidence 7.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value84/100 · 41% evidence 11.5 / 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 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 · 58/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area7 km · 450 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 52/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 39/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
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 ValleyGolmGolm im MontafonBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalVeitschVeitschPilaPilaMonte San PrimoMonte San PrimoSchattwaldZoblen SchattwaldHohe ScheibeHohe ScheibeMarulSonntag
Assessment
Decision score 75/100clear advantage69/10065/10064/10057/10056/10055/10052/10049/10049/100
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage69/10075/10064/10057/10063/10055/10052/10049/10049/100
Current opportunity 29/1000/10025/1000/1000/10013/1000/1000/10035/100clear advantage0/100
Overall quality 6.0/108.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/104.0/106.2/10–6.8/10–3.5/10
Recommendation confidence MediumLowMediumMediumLowMediumLowMediumLowMedium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10049/10076/10078/10054/10058/10018/10049/10049/10031/100
Typical daytime high 3°C5°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C3°C3°C8°C2°C1°C8°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-2°C-7°C-6°C-5°C-3°C1°C-5°C-6°C-1°C
Rating 8.1/106.9/108.1/107.4/10–7.3/10–6.0/10–5.1/10
Area size class 150–250 km20–50 km250+ km100–150 km20 km or less50–100 km20 km or less20 km or less–20 km or less
Ability profile advancedintermediateadvancedadvancedintermediateadvancedexpertadvancednovicenovice
Price class highavghighhighavgavgavgavgavgavg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km27 km322 kmclear advantage142 km11 km70 km4 km8 km–7 km
Lowest point 1,000 m650 m1,562 m1,472 m1,064 m1,540 m1,100 m1,090 m–1,300 m
Highest point 3,842 m2,100 m3,899 m3,573 m1,450 m2,740 m1,500 m1,565 m–1,750 m
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage1,450 m2,337 m2,101 m386 m1,200 m400 m475 m–450 m
Blue pistes 34%50%23%22%48%16%25%55%–57%
Red pistes 44%45%68%62%33%73%50%45%–43%
Black pistes 22%6%8%16%19%11%25%0%–0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%–92%clear advantage57%–73%–0%–0%
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%–21%clear advantage0%–0%–0%–0%
Piste-mix diversity 97/10079/10074/10084/10094/10070/10095/10099/100–99/100
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage–51/10068/100–49/100–44/100–33/100
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage–6%2%–5%–3%–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––29 cm––––
Mid-mountain snow 97 cmclear advantage–68 cm––42 cm––––
Mountain snow 142 cmclear advantage–100 cm––50 cm––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality ––9.6/10–––––9.0/10–
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/km616 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km659 pph/km372 pph/km–659 pph/km–400 pph/km
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.37×0.28×0.28×0.36×0.29×–0.39×–0.44×
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift3.0 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift1.8 km/lift5.8 km/lift0.1 km/lift2.1 km/lift–2.3 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 3°C2°C-8°C-1°C-3°C5°C5°C0°C-2°C1°C
Maximum temperature 10°C14°C-5°C6°C1°C8°C10°C7°C1°C5°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –family–family–family––––
Piste variety slopes–slopesslopes––––––
Off-piste offpiste–offpiste––offpiste––––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network –liftsliftslifts––––––
Mountain restaurants ––restaurantsrestaurants––––––
Après-ski ––apresskiapresski––––––
Public transport transit–transit––––transit–transit
Best airport transfer 63 minclear advantage–104 min441 min–118 min–115 min––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer–186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–36 km/h transfer–4 km/h transfer––