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

Maishofen is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

Maishofen

83/100
Why
  1. Maishofen is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier.
Limited evidenceUpdated 20 h ago
  • Strong overall decision score (83/100).

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

AlternativeChamonix
Main uncertaintyMost of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.
Limited evidenceUpdated 20 h ago8.4 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Maishofen

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choice

Leads on strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Maishofen leads Chamonix Terrain fit +13.1 pts and Snow reliability +8.1 pts
Terrain fit +13.1Access -8.8Snow reliability +8.1Snow now -3.9
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChamonix

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

What could change the resultIf terrain receives about 50% more weight, Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin8.4pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–1.

Evidence confidence68%

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.

Why Maishofen leads Chamonix · 8.4 pts
Access-8.8 pts
Snow+8.1 pts
Lift system+4.1 pts
Scale+4.0 pts
Current opportunity-3.9 pts
Family & value+3.4 pts

Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.

Priority sensitivity · what can change the winner?
TerrainChamonix

If terrain receives about 50% more weight, Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Immediate conditionsChamonix

If immediate snow and opening conditions dominate the decision, Chamonix becomes the stronger option.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

Trip match is profile-specific. Expand the calculation to see exactly how each score is built.

Maishofen

#1 · Zell am See Kaprun · Austria

Decision83/100
Fit83/100
Now0/100
Quality5.9/10
Now00 cm freshReliability8383/100Terrain8383/100
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.

Fit83.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision83.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow83/100 · 73% evidence 22.7 / 27.3 pts
Terrain72/100 · 80% evidence 18.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale97/100 · 85% evidence 17.6 / 18.2 pts
Lift system83/100 · 68% evidence 13.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 11.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 63%

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 · 84/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area141 km · 2,269 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m90%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Chamonix

#2 · 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..

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.

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
AttributeMaishofenZell am See KaprunChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastal
Assessment
Decision score 83/100clear advantage75/10065/10064/100
Structural Fit 83/10082/10075/10064/100
Current opportunity 0/10029/10025/1000/100
Overall quality 5.9/106.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/10
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMedium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 47/10068/10076/10078/100
Typical daytime high 6°C3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––
Typical overnight low -1°C-4°C-7°C-6°C
Rating 7.2/108.1/108.1/107.4/10
Area size class 100–150 km150–250 km250+ km100–150 km
Ability profile intermediateadvancedadvancedadvanced
Price class avghighhighhigh
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 141 km175 km322 kmclear advantage142 km
Lowest point 760 m1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m
Highest point 3,029 m3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m
Vertical range 2,269 m2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m
Blue pistes 44%34%23%22%
Red pistes 36%44%68%62%
Black pistes 20%22%8%16%
Terrain above 2,000 m 90%55%92%57%
Terrain above 3,000 m 1%0%21%clear advantage0%
Piste-mix diversity 96/10097/10074/10084/100
Slope-angle diversity 38/10086/100clear advantage51/10068/100
Very/extremely steep terrain 4%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 above typical+109% vs average · 92th percentileBelow 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 cm19 cm–
Mid-mountain snow –97 cmclear advantage68 cm–
Mountain snow –142 cmclear advantage100 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 711 pph/kmclear advantage556 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km
Lift-system coverage 0.45×0.48×0.28×0.28×
Terrain per lift 2.7 km/lift2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 2°C2°C-7°C-2°C
Maximum temperature 10°C9°C-5°C6°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability family––family
Piste variety –slopesslopesslopes
Off-piste –offpisteoffpiste–
Cross-country ––––
Lift network lifts–liftslifts
Mountain restaurants restaurants–restaurantsrestaurants
Après-ski apresski–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