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.

Selected8 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.

8 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. Zell am See is the strongest alternative. 3 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. Zell am See is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 18 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 142 cm.
AlternativeZell am See
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Zell am See 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 18 h ago1.4 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Chamonix

Advanced-terrain specialistEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Zell am See. 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 Zell am See Snow now +3.0 pts and Terrain fit +0.9 pts
Snow now +3.0Snow reliability -2.9Terrain fit +0.9Access +0.6
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeZell am See

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

What could change the resultReduce terrain weight from 22 to 12 and Zell am See becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.4pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.

Evidence confidence73%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier3 options

4 options are dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Lowest-regret optionZell am See · 92% 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.

TerrainZell am See

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 12 and Zell am See becomes the leading option.

22 → 12
SnowZell am See

Increase snow weight from 24 to 42 and Zell am See becomes the leading option.

24 → 42
Lift systemZell am See

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 50 and Zell am See becomes the leading option.

14 → 50
Family & valueZell am See

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 68 and Zell am See becomes the leading option.

12 → 68
Why Chamonix leads Zell am See · 1.4 pts
Current opportunity+3.0 pts
Snow-2.9 pts
Terrain+2.6 pts
Lift system-1.0 pts
Family & value-0.7 pts
Access+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

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 Decision74.6/100
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..

Zell am See

#2 · Zell am See Kaprun · Austria

Decision73/100
Fit83/100
Now7/100
Quality5.9/10
Now730 cm upperReliability8383/100Terrain8383/100Access7979 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.

Fit82.688% weight Now7.312% weight Decision73.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow83/100 · 73% evidence 20.0 / 24.0 pts
Terrain72/100 · 80% evidence 15.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale97/100 · 85% evidence 15.5 / 16.0 pts
Lift system83/100 · 68% evidence 11.7 / 14.0 pts
Access79/100 · 68% evidence 9.4 / 12.0 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 10.2 / 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 snow30 cm 4.5 / 45.5 pts
Open terrain9% 2.7 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 83/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area141 km · 2,269 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m90%Best transfer79 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 61% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.
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..

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.

Andiast

#5 · Brigels Surselva · Switzerland

Decision63/100
Fit63/100
Now0/100
Quality6.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7070/100Terrain6161/100
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.

Fit63.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision63.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow70/100 · 37% evidence 19.2 / 27.3 pts
Terrain71/100 · 52% evidence 17.7 / 25.0 pts
Scale75/100 · 100% evidence 13.7 / 18.2 pts
Lift system26/100 · 68% evidence 4.2 / 15.9 pts
Family & value62/100 · 41% evidence 8.4 / 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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useAdvanced skiing · 66/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area40 km · 1,316 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 61/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 70/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Aosta

#6 · Pila · Italy

Decision60/100
Fit60/100
Now0/100
Quality6.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7070/100Terrain6363/100Access26153 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.

Fit60.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision60.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow70/100 · 73% evidence 16.7 / 24.0 pts
Terrain67/100 · 80% evidence 14.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale80/100 · 100% evidence 12.8 / 16.0 pts
Lift system45/100 · 68% evidence 6.3 / 14.0 pts
Access26/100 · 68% evidence 3.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value54/100 · 41% evidence 6.5 / 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.

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 · 64/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area70 km · 1,200 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m73%Best transfer153 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 70/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Mals

#7 · Mals · Italy

Decision56/100
Fit56/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6868/100Terrain5151/100
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.

Fit55.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision55.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow68/100 · 73% evidence 18.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain55/100 · 72% evidence 13.7 / 25.0 pts
Scale56/100 · 85% evidence 10.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system40/100 · 8% evidence 6.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value52/100 · 28% evidence 7.1 / 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 typeSnow-led destinationBest useSnow-first trips · 60/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area18 km · 750 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m60%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 51/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Nassereith

#8 · Nassereith · Austria

Decision19/100
Fit19/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2020/100Terrain1818/100
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.

Fit18.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision18.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow20/100 · 36% evidence 6.6 / 32.4 pts
Terrain33/100 · 15% evidence 9.9 / 29.7 pts
Scale9/100 · 58% evidence 2.0 / 21.6 pts
Family & value0/100 · 18% evidence 0.0 / 16.2 pts
AccessNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded

Data coverage: 23%

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 destinationSnow reliabilityLowSki area1 km · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 18/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 20/100 — 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 ValleyZell am SeeZell am See KaprunBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalAndiastBrigels SurselvaAostaPilaMalsMalsNassereithNassereith
Assessment
Decision score 75/10073/10065/10064/10063/10060/10056/10019/100
Structural Fit 82/10083/10075/10064/10063/10060/10056/10019/100
Current opportunity 29/1007/10025/1000/1000/1000/1000/1000/100
Overall quality 6.0/105.9/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/106.5/106.2/10––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumLowMediumLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10047/10076/10078/10062/10058/10064/10021/100
Typical daytime high 3°C6°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C4°C3°C2°C2°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-1°C-7°C-6°C-4°C-3°C-7°C-6°C
Rating 8.1/107.2/108.1/107.4/106.0/107.3/10––
Area size class 150–250 km100–150 km250+ km100–150 km20–50 km50–100 km20 km or less20 km or less
Ability profile advancedintermediateadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvanced
Price class highavghighhighhighavg–low
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km141 km322 kmclear advantage142 km40 km70 km18 km1 km
Lowest point 1,000 m760 m1,562 m1,472 m1,102 m1,540 m1,750 mclear advantage–
Highest point 3,842 m3,029 m3,899 m3,573 m2,418 m2,740 m2,500 m1,030 m
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,269 m2,337 m2,101 m1,316 m1,200 m750 m–
Blue pistes 34%44%23%22%28%16%22%0%
Red pistes 44%36%68%62%65%73%72%100%
Black pistes 22%20%8%16%8%11%6%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%90%92%57%–73%60%–
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%1%21%clear advantage0%–0%0%–
Piste-mix diversity 97/10096/10074/10084/10075/10070/10066/100–
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage38/10051/10068/100–49/10060/100–
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage4%6%2%–5%1%–
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 percentileWell below typical-61% vs average · 17th 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-1% vs average · 88th percentileClose to typical-21% vs average · 45th percentile–––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm–19 cm–––––
Mid-mountain snow 97 cmclear advantage–68 cm–––––
Mountain snow 142 cmclear advantage30 cm100 cm–––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality ––9.6/10–––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –9%7%–––––
Open lifts ––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km711 pph/kmclear advantage298 pph/km289 pph/km251 pph/km372 pph/km––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.45×0.28×0.28×0.27×0.29×––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift2.7 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift4.0 km/lift5.8 km/lift3.6 km/lift–
Weather
Minimum temperature 3°C8°C-8°C-1°C3°C10°C1°C3°C
Maximum temperature 10°C12°C-5°C6°C10°C17°C11°C11°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –family–familyfamilyfamily––
Piste variety slopes–slopesslopes––––
Off-piste offpiste–offpiste––offpiste––
Cross-country ––––––––
Lift network –liftsliftsliftslifts–––
Mountain restaurants –restaurantsrestaurantsrestaurants––––
Après-ski –apresskiapresskiapresski––––
Public transport transittransittransit–––––
Best airport transfer 63 min79 min104 min441 min–153 min––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer107 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–27 km/h transfer––