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.

Selected4 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.

4 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

Sankt Vigil in Enneberg is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 84/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 43/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileEarly winter
Effectively tied

Sankt Vigil in Enneberg

73/100
Why
  1. Sankt Vigil in Enneberg is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 84/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 43/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.
Limited evidenceUpdated 11 h ago
  • Structural fit score: 73/100.

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.
Limited evidenceUpdated 11 h ago3.6 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Sankt Vigil in Enneberg

Advanced-terrain specialistEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 84/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 43/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Sankt Vigil in Enneberg leads Chamonix Terrain fit +15.8 pts and Snow reliability +1.1 pts
Terrain fit +15.8Access -8.4Snow now -5.0Snow reliability +1.1
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 snow weight from 24 to 63 and Saas becomes the leading option.

Lead margin3.6pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 2–3.

Evidence confidence58%

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 · 88% 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.

SnowSaas

Increase snow weight from 24 to 63 and Saas becomes the leading option.

24 → 63
Why Sankt Vigil in Enneberg leads Chamonix · 3.6 pts
Access-8.4 pts
Current opportunity-5.0 pts
Terrain+4.5 pts
Family & value+4.4 pts
Scale+3.9 pts
Lift system+3.0 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.

Sankt Vigil in Enneberg

#1 · Kronplatz Plan de Corones · Italy

Decision73/100
Fit73/100
Now0/100
Quality6.3/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4343/100Terrain8484/100
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.

Fit72.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision72.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow43/100 · 52% evidence 11.7 / 27.3 pts
Terrain81/100 · 52% evidence 20.2 / 25.0 pts
Scale93/100 · 85% evidence 16.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system74/100 · 68% evidence 11.8 / 15.9 pts
Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 12.2 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 52%

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 typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 76/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area125 km · 1,302 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 84/100 — 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.

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision69/100
Fit78/100
Now29/100
Quality6.0/10
Now29142 cm upperReliability5353/100Terrain8686/100Access8563 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.

Fit77.883% weight Now28.717% weight Decision69.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow53/100 · 72% evidence 12.8 / 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 · 81/100Snow reliabilityLowSki 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 82% 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..
  • Solid reliability match · 53/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Saas

#3 · Saastal · Switzerland

Decision62/100
Fit62/100
Now0/100
Quality8.7/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6868/100Terrain7070/100Access10441 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.

Fit62.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision62.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow68/100 · 72% evidence 16.2 / 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 · 69/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki 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 · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Breuil Cervinia

#4 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision58/100
Fit72/100
Now22/100
Quality9.2/10
Now2275 cm upperReliability8181/100Terrain7171/100Access61104 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.

Fit72.372% weight Now22.028% weight Decision58.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow81/100 · 72% evidence 19.3 / 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: 73%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow75 cm 7.5 / 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 snow53 cm 1.8 / 8.0 pts

Data coverage: 100%

Destination typeHigh-alpine snow anchorBest useAdvanced skiing · 75/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki 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 39% 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..
  • Strong reliability match · 81/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

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
AttributeSankt Vigil in EnnebergKronplatz Plan de CoronesChamonixChamonix ValleySaasSaastalBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise
Assessment
Decision score 73/10069/10062/10058/100
Structural Fit 73/10078/100clear advantage62/10072/100
Current opportunity 0/10029/100clear advantage0/10022/100
Overall quality 6.3/106.0/108.7/109.2/10clear advantage
Recommendation confidence LowMediumMediumHigh
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 35/10030/10053/10057/100
Typical daytime high 5°C6°C4°C1°Cclear advantage
Typical snow/freezing level ––––
Typical overnight low -1°C0°C-2°C-3°C
Rating 7.5/108.1/107.4/108.1/10
Area size class 100–150 km150–250 km100–150 km250+ km
Ability profile intermediateadvancedadvancedadvanced
Price class avghighhighhigh
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 125 km175 km142 km322 kmclear advantage
Lowest point 973 m1,000 m1,472 m1,562 m
Highest point 2,275 m3,842 m3,573 m3,899 m
Vertical range 1,302 m2,842 mclear advantage2,101 m2,337 m
Blue pistes 48%34%22%23%
Red pistes 29%44%62%68%
Black pistes 23%22%16%8%
Terrain above 2,000 m –55%57%92%clear advantage
Terrain above 3,000 m –0%0%21%clear advantage
Piste-mix diversity 96/10097/10084/10074/100
Slope-angle diversity –86/100clear advantage68/10051/100
Very/extremely steep terrain –21%clear advantage2%6%
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+82% vs average · 80th percentile–Well below typical-39% vs average · 5th percentile
Valley snow versus typical –Well above typical100th percentile–Below typical-44% vs average · 55th percentile
Open slopes versus typical –––Close to typical-21% vs average · 46th percentile
Current snow
Valley snow –30 cm–19 cm
Mid-mountain snow –97 cmclear advantage–53 cm
Mountain snow –142 cmclear advantage–75 cm
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality –––9.6/10
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––7%
Open lifts ––––
Lift capacity per piste km 633 pph/kmclear advantage556 pph/km289 pph/km298 pph/km
Lift-system coverage 0.37×0.48×clear advantage0.28×0.28×
Terrain per lift 3.9 km/lift2.5 km/lift3.6 km/lift6.0 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature -2°C-1°C-4°C-11°C
Maximum temperature 6°C7°C3°C-8°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability family–family–
Piste variety slopesslopesslopesslopes
Off-piste –offpiste–offpiste
Cross-country crosscountry–––
Lift network lifts–liftslifts
Mountain restaurants restaurants–restaurantsrestaurants
Après-ski ––apresskiapresski
Public transport –transit–transit
Best airport transfer –63 minclear advantage441 min104 min
Skiing per transfer hour –166 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer