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

Abondance narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Abondance

77/100
Why
  1. Abondance narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier.
Limited evidenceUpdated 15 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (77/100).

Evidence coverage is limited; the ranking may move with new observations.

AlternativeChamonix
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Chamonix is small. Some 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 15 h ago0.0 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Abondance

Large-domain explorerEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Abondance leads Chamonix Terrain fit +14.1 pts and Snow reliability +1.2 pts
Terrain fit +14.1Access -8.8Snow now -6.7Snow reliability +1.2
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. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 15 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.0pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence62%

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 · 93% 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.

Lift systemAbondance

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 15 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

14 → 15
SnowAbondance

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 23 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

24 → 23
Family & valueAbondance

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 13 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

12 → 13
TerrainAbondance

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 20 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

22 → 20
Why Abondance leads Chamonix · 0.0 pts
Access-8.8 pts
Current opportunity-6.7 pts
Lift system+6.4 pts
Family & value+3.8 pts
Scale+2.3 pts
Terrain+1.6 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.

Abondance

#1 · Portes du Soleil · France

Decision77/100
Fit77/100
Now0/100
Quality6.3/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5858/100Terrain8585/100
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.

Fit77.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision77.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow58/100 · 73% evidence 15.8 / 27.3 pts
Terrain72/100 · 80% evidence 18.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale88/100 · 100% evidence 15.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system98/100 · 8% evidence 15.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value88/100 · 41% evidence 12.0 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 57%

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 useFamily trips · 81/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area580 km · 1,269 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m8%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow trails the selected-set median by 14 points.

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision77/100
Fit82/100
Now49/100
Quality6.0/10
Now49259 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 Now48.814% weight Decision77.4/100
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 snow259 cm 37.0 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow167 cm 8.0 / 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+ m
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

Decision68/100
Fit75/100
Now20/100
Quality9.2/10
Now20101 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.

Fit75.486% weight Now20.114% weight Decision67.8/100
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 snow101 cm 14.4 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow19 cm 2.4 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow68 cm 3.2 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

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 22% 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.

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
AttributeAbondancePortes du SoleilChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastal
Assessment
Decision score 77/10077/10068/10064/100
Structural Fit 77/10082/100clear advantage75/10064/100
Current opportunity 0/10049/100clear advantage20/1000/100
Overall quality 6.3/106.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/10
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMedium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 71/10068/10076/10078/100
Typical daytime high 3°C3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––
Typical overnight low -3°C-4°C-7°C-6°C
Rating 7.4/108.1/108.1/107.4/10
Area size class 250+ km150–250 km250+ km100–150 km
Ability profile intermediateadvancedadvancedadvanced
Price class highhighhighhigh
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 580 kmclear advantage175 km322 km142 km
Lowest point 985 m1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m
Highest point 2,254 m3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m
Vertical range 1,269 m2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m
Blue pistes 53%34%23%22%
Red pistes 36%44%68%62%
Black pistes 10%22%clear advantage8%16%
Terrain above 2,000 m 8%55%92%clear advantage57%
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%21%clear advantage0%
Piste-mix diversity 85/10097/100clear advantage74/10084/100
Slope-angle diversity 58/10086/100clear advantage51/10068/100
Very/extremely steep terrain 6%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 below typical-22% vs average · 19th percentile–
Valley snow versus typical ––Close to typical-4% vs average · 81th percentile–
Open slopes versus typical ––––
Current snow
Valley snow –30 cm19 cm–
Mid-mountain snow –167 cmclear advantage68 cm–
Mountain snow –259 cmclear advantage101 cm–
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality ––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––––
Open lifts ––––
Lift capacity per piste km –556 pph/kmclear advantage298 pph/km289 pph/km
Lift-system coverage –0.48×clear advantage0.28×0.28×
Terrain per lift 3.5 km/lift2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 8°C8°C3°C4°C
Maximum temperature 17°C17°C14°C13°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability family––family
Piste variety –slopesslopesslopes
Off-piste –offpisteoffpiste–
Cross-country ––––
Lift network ––liftslifts
Mountain restaurants ––restaurantsrestaurants
Après-ski ––apresskiapresski
Public transport transittransittransit–
Best airport transfer –63 minclear advantage104 min441 min
Skiing per transfer hour –166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer