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

La Foux is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 72/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chabanon is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

La Foux

66/100
Why
  1. La Foux is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 72/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chabanon is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.
Limited evidenceUpdated 16 h ago
  • Structural fit score: 66/100.

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

AlternativeChabanon
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 16 h ago13.8 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

La Foux

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choice

Leads on solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 72/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why La Foux leads Chabanon Terrain fit +10.2 pts and Snow reliability +6.2 pts
Terrain fit +10.2Snow reliability +6.2Access -2.7
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChabanon

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.

Lead margin13.8pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence70%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier2 options

No selected option is clearly dominated on the shared evidence.

Why La Foux leads Chabanon · 13.8 pts
Snow+6.2 pts
Terrain+5.3 pts
Scale+5.0 pts
Access-2.7 pts
Family & value-0.2 pts
Lift system+0.1 pts

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

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.

La Foux

#1 · Espace Lumiere · France

Decision66/100
Fit66/100
Now0/100
Quality8.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7272/100Terrain6363/100
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.

Fit65.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision65.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow72/100 · 73% evidence 19.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain75/100 · 80% evidence 18.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale82/100 · 100% evidence 14.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system17/100 · 68% evidence 2.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value71/100 · 41% evidence 9.7 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 66%

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 reliabilityVery highSki area180 km · 968 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m69%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 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 · 72/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Chabanon

#2 · Chabanon · France

Decision52/100
Fit52/100
Now0/100
Quality5.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5555/100Terrain5656/100Access22166 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.

Fit51.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision51.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow55/100 · 37% evidence 13.3 / 24.0 pts
Terrain61/100 · 52% evidence 13.5 / 22.0 pts
Scale62/100 · 100% evidence 9.9 / 16.0 pts
Lift system18/100 · 68% evidence 2.5 / 14.0 pts
Access22/100 · 68% evidence 2.7 / 12.0 pts
Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 9.9 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 59%

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 useAdvanced skiing · 55/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area40 km · 479 m verticalBest transfer166 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 56/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 55/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Le Grand Puy

#3 · · France

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
AttributeLa FouxEspace LumiereChabanonChabanonLe Grand PuyFrance
Assessment
Decision score 66/100clear advantage52/100–
Structural Fit 66/100clear advantage52/100–
Current opportunity 0/1000/100–
Overall quality 8.2/10clear advantage5.0/10–
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 75/100clear advantage43/100–
Typical daytime high 3°C4°C–
Typical snow/freezing level –––
Typical overnight low -4°C-3°C–
Rating 6.7/106.4/10–
Area size class 150–250 km20–50 km–
Ability profile advancedintermediate–
Price class lowlow–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 180 kmclear advantage40 km–
Lowest point 1,608 m1,546 m–
Highest point 2,576 mclear advantage2,025 m–
Vertical range 968 mclear advantage479 m–
Blue pistes 31%45%–
Red pistes 52%38%–
Black pistes 17%18%–
Terrain above 2,000 m 69%––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%––
Piste-mix diversity 91/10094/100–
Slope-angle diversity 58/100––
Very/extremely steep terrain 5%––
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 –––
Mid-mountain snow –––
Mountain snow –––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm–
Snow quality –––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––
Open lifts –––
Lift capacity per piste km 252 pph/km227 pph/km–
Lift-system coverage 0.19×0.20×–
Terrain per lift 5.0 km/lift3.3 km/lift–
Weather
Minimum temperature 7°C8°C9°C
Maximum temperature 15°C16°C19°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –––
Piste variety –––
Off-piste offpiste––
Cross-country –––
Lift network –––
Mountain restaurants –––
Après-ski –––
Public transport –––
Best airport transfer –166 min–
Skiing per transfer hour –14 km/h transfer–