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.

Selected9 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.

9 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, solid reliability match · 53/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Saas is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileEarly winter
Recommended

Chamonix

69/100
Why
  1. Chamonix is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 53/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Saas is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 15 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (78/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 147 cm.
AlternativeSaas
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 15 h ago7.2 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 choice

Leads on 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.

Why Chamonix leads Saas Access +7.2 pts and Snow now +5.2 pts
Access +7.2Snow reliability -5.6Snow now +5.2Terrain fit +0.5
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeSaas

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

What could change the resultReduce access weight from 12 to 0 and Saas becomes the leading option.

Lead margin7.2pts

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.

AccessSaas

Reduce access weight from 12 to 0 and Saas becomes the leading option.

12 → 0
SnowBreuil Cervinia

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

24 → 63
ScaleSaas

Increase scale weight from 16 to 84 and Saas becomes the leading option.

16 → 84
Why Chamonix leads Saas · 7.2 pts
Access+7.2 pts
Snow-5.6 pts
Current opportunity+5.2 pts
Lift system+3.4 pts
Scale-2.5 pts
Terrain-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

Decision69/100
Fit78/100
Now30/100
Quality6.0/10
Now30147 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 Now29.617% weight Decision69.4/100
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 snow147 cm 21.0 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow100 cm 4.8 / 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 67% 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

#2 · 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

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision62/100
Fit72/100
Now7/100
Quality9.2/10
Now731 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.

Fit72.284% weight Now6.816% weight Decision61.8/100
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 snow31 cm 4.7 / 45.5 pts
Open terrain7% 2.1 / 30.3 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 24.2 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 66%

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 76% 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.

Myrkdalen

#4 · Myrkdalen · Norway

Decision52/100
Fit52/100
Now0/100
Quality6.7/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2626/100Terrain6262/100
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.

Fit52.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision52.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow26/100 · 52% evidence 7.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain63/100 · 52% evidence 15.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale62/100 · 100% evidence 11.3 / 18.2 pts
Lift system42/100 · 68% evidence 6.7 / 15.9 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 11.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 54%

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 area35 km · 610 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 · 26/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Hemsedal

#5 · Hemsedal · Norway

Decision52/100
Fit59/100
Now21/100
Quality9.0/10
Now2180 cm upperReliability2929/100Terrain7070/100
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.

Fit58.883% weight Now21.317% weight Decision52.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow29/100 · 52% evidence 8.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain63/100 · 52% evidence 15.7 / 25.0 pts
Scale77/100 · 100% evidence 13.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system61/100 · 68% evidence 9.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 11.5 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 54%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow80 cm 11.4 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow52 cm 6.6 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow69 cm 3.3 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 64/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area44 km · 830 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 29/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Valdres

#6 · Valdres · Norway

Decision50/100
Fit50/100
Now0/100
Quality8.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3434/100Terrain5757/100
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.

Fit50.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision50.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow34/100 · 52% evidence 9.2 / 27.3 pts
Terrain60/100 · 52% evidence 14.9 / 25.0 pts
Scale37/100 · 100% evidence 6.7 / 18.2 pts
Lift system47/100 · 68% evidence 7.4 / 15.9 pts
Family & value88/100 · 41% evidence 12.0 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 54%

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 area10 km · 360 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 57/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 34/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Hlidarfjall

#7 · Hlidarfjall · Iceland

Decision48/100
Fit48/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2323/100Terrain5858/100
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.

Fit48.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision48.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow23/100 · 52% evidence 6.3 / 27.3 pts
Terrain62/100 · 44% evidence 15.5 / 25.0 pts
Scale48/100 · 85% evidence 8.7 / 18.2 pts
Lift system40/100 · 8% evidence 6.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value84/100 · 28% evidence 11.4 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 40%

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 · 55/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area15 km · 514 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 23/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Gol

#8 · Gol-Storefjell · Norway

Decision41/100
Fit41/100
Now–/100
Quality–/10
Reliability4242/100Terrain4040/100
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.

Fit40.5100% weight Now–0% weight Decision40.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow42/100 · 52% evidence 11.3 / 27.3 pts
Terrain38/100 · 44% evidence 9.5 / 25.0 pts
Scale34/100 · 100% evidence 6.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system16/100 · 68% evidence 2.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value80/100 · 41% evidence 11.0 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 53%

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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 50/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area10 km · 209 m verticalCurrent dataNo current updatePeer 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 · 42/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Mauth Finsterau

#9 · Mauth Finsterau · Germany

Decision34/100
Fit34/100
Now0/100
Quality3.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability1414/100Terrain4141/100
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.

Fit33.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision33.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow14/100 · 52% evidence 3.8 / 27.3 pts
Terrain7/100 · 39% evidence 1.7 / 25.0 pts
Scale7/100 · 100% evidence 1.3 / 18.2 pts
Lift system83/100 · 68% evidence 13.2 / 15.9 pts
Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 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 · 55/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area0 km · 34 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 41/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 14/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
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 ValleySaasSaastalBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseMyrkdalenMyrkdalenHemsedalHemsedalValdresValdresHlidarfjallHlidarfjallGolGol-StorefjellMauth FinsterauMauth Finsterau
Assessment
Decision score 69/100clear advantage62/10062/10052/10052/10050/10048/10041/10034/100
Structural Fit 78/100clear advantage62/10072/10052/10059/10050/10048/10041/10034/100
Current opportunity 30/100clear advantage0/1007/1000/10021/1000/1000/100–0/100
Overall quality 6.0/108.7/109.2/106.7/109.0/108.2/10––3.0/10
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumLowLowLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 30/10053/10057/10038/10038/10049/10034/10053/10013/100
Typical daytime high 6°C4°C1°C3°C-2°C-2°C3°C1°C7°C
Typical snow/freezing level –––––––––
Typical overnight low 0°C-2°C-3°C-1°C-5°C-5°C-3°C-5°C2°C
Rating 8.1/107.4/108.1/106.8/107.0/107.4/10–6.0/10–
Area size class 150–250 km100–150 km250+ km20–50 km20–50 km20 km or less20 km or less20 km or less20 km or less
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedintermediatenoviceintermediateadvancednovicenovice
Price class highhighhigh–avgavg–avgavg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km142 km322 kmclear advantage35 km44 km10 km15 km10 km0 km
Lowest point 1,000 m1,472 m1,562 m450 m620 m700 m500 m940 m766 m
Highest point 3,842 m3,573 m3,899 m1,060 m1,450 m1,060 m1,014 m1,149 m800 m
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,101 m2,337 m610 m830 m360 m514 m209 m34 m
Blue pistes 34%22%23%48%66%60%40%67%100%
Red pistes 44%62%68%39%24%20%47%27%0%
Black pistes 22%16%8%13%9%20%13%6%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%57%92%clear advantage––––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%21%clear advantage––––––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10084/10074/10090/10076/10086/10090/10072/100–
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 Above typical+67% vs average · 74th percentile–Well below typical-76% vs average · 1th percentile––––––
Valley snow versus typical Well above typical100th percentile––––––––
Open slopes versus typical ––Close to typical-33% vs average · 42th percentile––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm–––52 cmclear advantage––––
Mid-mountain snow 100 cmclear advantage–––69 cm––––
Mountain snow 147 cmclear advantage–31 cm–80 cm––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–0 cm
Snow quality –––––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––7%––––––
Open lifts –––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km289 pph/km298 pph/km383 pph/km630 pph/km492 pph/km–240 pph/km2,000 pph/kmclear advantage
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.28×0.28×0.31×0.30×0.30×–0.23×0.67×clear advantage
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift3.6 km/lift6.0 km/lift3.8 km/lift2.1 km/lift2.0 km/lift3.0 km/lift3.3 km/lift0.3 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 3°C2°C3°C-6°C-7°C-5°C-8°C–5°C
Maximum temperature 5°C7°C6°C-1°C-2°C-1°C-7°C–9°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –family––family––––
Piste variety slopesslopesslopes–slopes––––
Off-piste offpiste–offpiste––––––
Cross-country ––––crosscountry––––
Lift network –liftslifts–lifts––––
Mountain restaurants –restaurantsrestaurants–restaurants––––
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––––––