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 narrowly leads 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. Weissfluhjoch is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Chamonix

75/100
Why
  1. Chamonix narrowly leads 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. Weissfluhjoch is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 21 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 142 cm.
AlternativeWeissfluhjoch
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Weissfluhjoch 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 21 h ago2.4 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 choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Weissfluhjoch. 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—but the result is close.

Why Chamonix leads Weissfluhjoch Access +8.8 pts and Snow now +3.9 pts
Access +8.8Terrain fit -6.1Snow reliability -4.3Snow now +3.9
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeWeissfluhjoch

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 7 and Weissfluhjoch becomes the leading option.

Lead margin2.4pts

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

6 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.

Lift systemWeissfluhjoch

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 7 and Weissfluhjoch becomes the leading option.

14 → 7
ScaleWeissfluhjoch

Increase scale weight from 16 to 36 and Weissfluhjoch becomes the leading option.

16 → 36
AccessOetz

Increase access weight from 12 to 48 and Oetz becomes the leading option.

12 → 48
SnowWeissfluhjoch

Increase snow weight from 24 to 83 and Weissfluhjoch becomes the leading option.

24 → 83
Why Chamonix leads Weissfluhjoch · 2.4 pts
Access+8.8 pts
Snow-4.3 pts
Scale-4.3 pts
Current opportunity+3.9 pts
Lift system+3.5 pts
Terrain-3.2 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 Decision74.7/100
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 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..

Weissfluhjoch

#2 · Davos Klosters Mountains · Switzerland

Decision72/100
Fit72/100
Now0/100
Quality9.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6969/100Terrain7474/100
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.

Fit72.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision72.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow69/100 · 73% evidence 18.9 / 27.3 pts
Terrain78/100 · 80% evidence 19.6 / 25.0 pts
Scale98/100 · 100% evidence 17.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system36/100 · 68% evidence 5.7 / 15.9 pts
Family & value75/100 · 41% evidence 10.3 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 75/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area214 km · 2,034 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m56%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 69/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Oetz

#3 · Oetz Hochoetz · Austria

Decision70/100
Fit70/100
Now0/100
Quality7.1/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6464/100Terrain6969/100Access9152 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.

Fit70.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision70.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow64/100 · 73% evidence 15.3 / 24.0 pts
Terrain73/100 · 80% evidence 16.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale73/100 · 85% evidence 11.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system57/100 · 68% evidence 8.0 / 14.0 pts
Access91/100 · 68% evidence 10.9 / 12.0 pts
Family & value69/100 · 41% evidence 8.3 / 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 typeAccess-led destinationBest useShort breaks · 72/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area38 km · 862 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m41%Best transfer52 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 69/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Solid reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Across the commonly available decision dimensions, Carezza Ski is at least as strong and meaningfully better on one or more dimensions.

Breuil Cervinia

#4 · 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.

Les Marecottes

#5 · Les Marecottes Salvan · Switzerland

Decision64/100
Fit64/100
Now0/100
Quality7.8/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6060/100Terrain6666/100
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.

Fit64.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision64.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow60/100 · 73% evidence 16.3 / 27.3 pts
Terrain80/100 · 80% evidence 20.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale59/100 · 100% evidence 10.7 / 18.2 pts
Lift system50/100 · 68% evidence 8.0 / 15.9 pts
Family & value69/100 · 41% evidence 9.4 / 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 typeTerrain-led destinationBest useAdvanced skiing · 68/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area9 km · 1,110 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m33%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Solid reliability match · 60/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Scale trails the selected-set median by 20 points.

Saas

#6 · 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.

Passo di Costalunga

#7 · Carezza Ski · Italy

Decision63/100
Fit74/100
Now16/100
Quality5.8/10
Now1650 cm upperReliability7171/100Terrain7575/100
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.

Fit73.681% weight Now16.419% weight Decision62.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow71/100 · 37% evidence 19.3 / 27.3 pts
Terrain71/100 · 52% evidence 17.9 / 25.0 pts
Scale80/100 · 85% evidence 14.5 / 18.2 pts
Lift system65/100 · 68% evidence 10.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 11.8 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 48%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow50 cm 5.6 / 33.3 pts
Open terrain44% 9.8 / 22.2 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 17.8 pts
Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 17.8 pts
Mid-mountain snow30 cm 1.1 / 8.9 pts
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 90%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 76/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area40 km · 1,155 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

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

Hoch Ybrig

#8 · Hoch Ybrig · Switzerland

Decision52/100
Fit56/100
Now9/100
Quality8.2/10
Now940 cm upperReliability4444/100Terrain6060/100
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.

Fit55.592% weight Now8.78% weight Decision51.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow44/100 · 73% evidence 11.9 / 27.3 pts
Terrain64/100 · 80% evidence 15.9 / 25.0 pts
Scale78/100 · 100% evidence 14.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system27/100 · 68% evidence 4.4 / 15.9 pts
Family & value67/100 · 41% evidence 9.2 / 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.

Mountain snow40 cm 8.7 / 65.2 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 34.8 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 46%

Destination typeScale-led destinationBest useAdvanced skiing · 59/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area50 km · 791 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 60/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Menzenschwand

#9 · Menzenschwand · Germany

Decision47/100
Fit47/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3131/100Terrain5252/100
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.

Fit46.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision46.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow31/100 · 37% evidence 8.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain52/100 · 44% evidence 12.9 / 25.0 pts
Scale31/100 · 100% evidence 5.7 / 18.2 pts
Lift system43/100 · 68% evidence 6.8 / 15.9 pts
Family & value93/100 · 28% evidence 12.7 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 47%

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 area6 km · 370 m verticalCurrent 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; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 31/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Rossfeld

#10 · Rossfeld · Germany

Decision40/100
Fit40/100
Now0/100
Quality3.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4040/100Terrain4040/100
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.

Fit39.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision39.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow40/100 · 37% evidence 11.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain27/100 · 52% evidence 6.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale39/100 · 100% evidence 7.0 / 18.2 pts
Lift system26/100 · 68% evidence 4.1 / 15.9 pts
Family & value80/100 · 41% evidence 10.9 / 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 · 50/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area8 km · 254 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 40/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 40/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth 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 ValleyWeissfluhjochDavos Klosters MountainsOetzOetz HochoetzBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseLes MarecottesLes Marecottes SalvanSaasSaastalPasso di CostalungaCarezza SkiHoch YbrigHoch YbrigMenzenschwandMenzenschwandRossfeldRossfeld
Assessment
Decision score 75/10072/10070/10065/10064/10064/10063/10052/10047/10040/100
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage72/10070/10075/10064/10064/10074/10056/10047/10040/100
Current opportunity 29/1000/1000/10025/1000/1000/10016/1009/1000/1000/100
Overall quality 6.0/109.2/107.1/109.2/107.8/108.7/105.8/108.2/10–3.0/10
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowMediumLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10072/10073/10076/10063/10078/10066/10052/10037/10040/100
Typical daytime high 3°C1°C4°C-2°Cclear advantage4°C1°C0°C3°C4°C4°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-6°C-4°C-7°C-5°C-6°C-6°C-4°C-3°C-2°C
Rating 8.1/108.2/106.5/108.1/106.6/107.4/107.2/106.6/10–7.2/10
Area size class 150–250 km150–250 km20–50 km250+ km20 km or less100–150 km20–50 km20–50 km20 km or less20 km or less
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedintermediateadvancedadvancednovice
Price class highhighavghighhighhighavghighlowavg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km214 km38 km322 kmclear advantage9 km142 km40 km50 km6 km8 km
Lowest point 1,000 m810 m1,410 m1,562 m1,110 m1,472 m1,182 m1,040 m850 m1,300 m
Highest point 3,842 m2,844 m2,272 m3,899 m2,220 m3,573 m2,337 m1,831 m1,220 m1,554 m
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,034 m862 m2,337 m1,110 m2,101 m1,155 m791 m370 m254 m
Blue pistes 34%31%32%23%30%22%48%30%45%88%
Red pistes 44%52%57%68%56%62%41%60%55%13%
Black pistes 22%clear advantage17%11%8%14%16%12%10%0%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%56%41%92%clear advantage33%57%–0%––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%0%21%clear advantage0%0%–0%––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10091/10084/10074/10088/10084/10089/10082/10099/10054/100
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage49/10076/10051/10074/10068/100–39/100––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage4%7%6%10%2%–4%––
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––0 cm–––
Mid-mountain snow 97 cmclear advantage––68 cm––30 cm–––
Mountain snow 142 cmclear advantage––100 cm––50 cm40 cm––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality –––9.6/10––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––7%––44%clear advantage–––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km286 pph/km583 pph/km298 pph/km502 pph/km289 pph/km548 pph/km291 pph/km508 pph/km404 pph/km
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.29×0.30×0.28×0.36×0.28×0.46×0.22×0.28×0.18×
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift4.5 km/lift2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift2.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift3.1 km/lift4.2 km/lift1.9 km/lift2.0 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 2°C-5°C4°C-7°C1°C-2°C-1°C0°C2°C2°C
Maximum temperature 9°C0°C13°C-5°C9°C6°C8°C6°C10°C8°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –family–––familyfamilyfamily––
Piste variety slopes––slopes–slopes––––
Off-piste offpisteoffpiste–offpiste––––––
Cross-country –crosscountry––––––––
Lift network –––liftsliftsliftslifts–––
Mountain restaurants –restaurants–restaurants–restaurants––––
Après-ski –apresski–apresski–apresski––––
Public transport transit–transittransit–––transit––
Best airport transfer 63 min–52 min104 min–441 min––––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer–43 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer–19 km/h transfer––––