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.

Selected3 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.

3 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

Alleghe Civetta is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 54/100 — led by strong snow resilience. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

Alleghe Civetta

59/100
Why
  1. Alleghe Civetta is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 54/100 — led by strong snow resilience. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 15 h ago
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 185 cm.
AlternativeNo close alternative
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 ago
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Alleghe Civetta

Balanced all-rounderLow-regret choice

Leads on good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 54/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

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

What could change the resultThe recommendation remains first under the tested nearby priority shifts in the available evidence.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence75%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier1 option

No selected option is clearly dominated on the shared evidence.

Priority sensitivity

The leading resort remains first under moderate one-criterion weighting shifts in the available evidence.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

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

Alleghe Civetta

#1 · Civetta · Italy

Decision59/100
Fit60/100
Now58/100
Quality7.3/10
Now58185 cm upperReliability5454/100Terrain7070/100Access18169 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.

Fit59.686% weight Now58.114% weight Decision59.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow54/100 · 73% evidence 13.0 / 24.0 pts
Terrain67/100 · 80% evidence 14.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale79/100 · 100% evidence 12.6 / 16.0 pts
Lift system57/100 · 68% evidence 7.9 / 14.0 pts
Access18/100 · 68% evidence 2.1 / 12.0 pts
Family & value75/100 · 41% evidence 9.0 / 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 snow185 cm 26.4 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow200 cm 22.9 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow185 cm 8.8 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeBalanced all-rounderBest useAdvanced skiing · 64/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area72 km · 1,100 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m2%Best transfer169 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Solid reliability match · 54/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Agna

#2 · · Italy

Decision–/100
Fit–/100
Now–/100
Quality–/10
Structural Fit calculation

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

AccessNo data excluded
Family & valueNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded
ScaleNo data excluded
SnowNo data excluded
TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

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 typeEvidence-limited destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected date
Strengths
  • The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.
Consider

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

Alpago

#3 · · Italy

Decision–/100
Fit–/100
Now–/100
Quality–/10
Structural Fit calculation

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

AccessNo data excluded
Family & valueNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded
ScaleNo data excluded
SnowNo data excluded
TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

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 typeEvidence-limited destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected date
Strengths
  • The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.
Consider

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

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
AttributeAlleghe CivettaCivettaAgnaItalyAlpagoItaly
Assessment
Decision score 59/100––
Structural Fit 60/100––
Current opportunity 58/100––
Overall quality 7.3/10––
Recommendation confidence MediumLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 67/100––
Typical daytime high 1°C––
Typical snow/freezing level –––
Typical overnight low -7°C––
Rating 6.3/10––
Area size class 50–100 km––
Ability profile advanced––
Price class avg––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 72 km––
Lowest point 1,000 m––
Highest point 2,100 m––
Vertical range 1,100 m––
Blue pistes 39%––
Red pistes 50%––
Black pistes 11%––
Terrain above 2,000 m 2%––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%––
Piste-mix diversity 87/100––
Slope-angle diversity 37/100––
Very/extremely steep terrain 3%––
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 –––
Valley snow versus typical –––
Open slopes versus typical –––
Current snow
Valley snow 200 cm––
Mid-mountain snow 185 cm––
Mountain snow 185 cm––
Fresh snow 0 cm––
Snow quality –––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––
Open lifts –––
Lift capacity per piste km 483 pph/km––
Lift-system coverage 0.28×––
Terrain per lift 3.1 km/lift––
Weather
Minimum temperature 8°C8°C8°C
Maximum temperature 19°C19°C15°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –––
Piste variety –––
Off-piste –––
Cross-country –––
Lift network –––
Mountain restaurants –––
Après-ski –––
Public transport –––
Best airport transfer 169 min––
Skiing per transfer hour 26 km/h transfer––