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

Megeve narrowly leads because of good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 61/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Abondance is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Megeve

72/100
Why
  1. Megeve narrowly leads because of good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 61/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Abondance is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.
Limited evidenceUpdated 15 h ago
  • Structural fit score: 72/100.

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

AlternativeAbondance
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Abondance is small. Most 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 15 h ago0.6 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Megeve

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Abondance. good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 61/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Megeve leads Abondance Access +10.3 pts
Access +10.3Terrain fit -7.9Snow reliability -1.8
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeAbondance

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

What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 15 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.6pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence75%

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.

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.

Family & valueAbondance

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 15 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

12 → 15
AccessAbondance

Reduce access weight from 12 to 7 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

12 → 7
ScaleAbondance

Reduce scale weight from 16 to 8 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

16 → 8
Lift systemAbondance

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 29 and Abondance becomes the leading option.

14 → 29
Why Megeve leads Abondance · 0.6 pts
Access+10.3 pts
Family & value-3.7 pts
Terrain-2.0 pts
Lift system-2.0 pts
Snow-1.8 pts
Scale-0.2 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.

Megeve

#1 · Evasion Mont Blanc · France

Decision72/100
Fit72/100
Now0/100
Quality6.1/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6161/100Terrain7474/100Access8664 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.

Fit72.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision72.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow61/100 · 73% evidence 14.5 / 24.0 pts
Terrain73/100 · 80% evidence 16.1 / 22.0 pts
Scale98/100 · 85% evidence 15.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system45/100 · 68% evidence 6.3 / 14.0 pts
Access86/100 · 68% evidence 10.3 / 12.0 pts
Family & value77/100 · 41% evidence 9.2 / 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.

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 · 73/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area401 km · 1,587 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m16%Best transfer64 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Solid reliability match · 61/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Abondance

#2 · Les Portes du Soleil · France

Decision72/100
Fit72/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6060/100Terrain7676/100
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.

Fit71.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision71.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow60/100 · 37% evidence 16.3 / 27.3 pts
Terrain73/100 · 44% evidence 18.1 / 25.0 pts
Scale88/100 · 100% evidence 15.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system52/100 · 68% evidence 8.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value95/100 · 28% evidence 12.9 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 47%

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 · 75/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area580 km · 1,269 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 76/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 60/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

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

Mont Blanc

#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
AttributeMegeveEvasion Mont BlancAbondanceLes Portes du SoleilMont BlancFrance
Assessment
Decision score 72/10072/100–
Structural Fit 72/10072/100–
Current opportunity 0/1000/100–
Overall quality 6.1/10––
Recommendation confidence MediumLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/100clear advantage47/100–
Typical daytime high 4°Cclear advantage8°C–
Typical snow/freezing level –––
Typical overnight low -3°Cclear advantage3°C–
Rating 7.5/10––
Area size class 250+ km250+ km–
Ability profile advancedintermediate–
Price class highavg–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 401 km580 kmclear advantage–
Lowest point 850 m985 m–
Highest point 2,437 mclear advantage2,254 m–
Vertical range 1,587 mclear advantage1,269 m–
Blue pistes 35%53%–
Red pistes 52%36%–
Black pistes 13%10%–
Terrain above 2,000 m 16%––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%––
Piste-mix diversity 89/10085/100–
Slope-angle diversity 48/100––
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 377 pph/km436 pph/km–
Lift-system coverage 0.25×0.25×–
Terrain per lift 3.7 km/lift3.5 km/lift–
Weather
Minimum temperature 7°C10°C-14°C
Maximum temperature 17°C18°C-3°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability familyfamily–
Piste variety slopesslopes–
Off-piste –––
Cross-country –––
Lift network –lifts–
Mountain restaurants –restaurants–
Après-ski –––
Public transport transit––
Best airport transfer 64 min––
Skiing per transfer hour 376 km/h transfer––