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.

Selected5 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

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. Grau Roig is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Chamonix

75/100

Why

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. Grau Roig is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Mixed evidenceUpdated 24 h ago

Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
Solid upper-mountain snow base at 147 cm.

AlternativeGrau Roig

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Grau Roig 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.

Open webcams Show on map Inspect forecast

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Chamonix

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Grau Roig. 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 Grau Roig Access +8.8 pts and Snow now +4.0 pts

Access +8.8Terrain fit -6.7Snow reliability -6.0Snow now +4.0

Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeGrau Roig

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

What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 14 and Grau Roig becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.2pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence73%

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.

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 & valueGrau Roig

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 14 and Grau Roig becomes the leading option.

12 → 14

SnowGrau Roig

Increase snow weight from 24 to 26 and Grau Roig becomes the leading option.

24 → 26

Lift systemGrau Roig

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 11 and Grau Roig becomes the leading option.

14 → 11

TerrainGrau Roig

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 19 and Grau Roig becomes the leading option.

22 → 19

Why Chamonix leads Grau Roig · 0.2 pts

Access+8.8 pts

Snow-6.0 pts

Family & value-4.0 pts

Current opportunity+4.0 pts

Terrain-1.4 pts

Scale-1.3 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

Now30/100

Quality6.0/10

Now30147 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 Now29.614% weight Decision74.8/100

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 snow147 cm 21.0 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow100 cm 4.8 / 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+ m

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..

Grau Roig

#2 · Grand Valira · Andorra

Decision75/100

Fit75/100

Now0/100

Quality6.4/10

Now00 cm freshReliability7676/100Terrain7474/100

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.

Fit74.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision74.6/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow76/100 · 37% evidence 20.6 / 27.3 pts

Terrain71/100 · 52% evidence 17.8 / 25.0 pts

Scale82/100 · 100% evidence 14.9 / 18.2 pts

Lift system58/100 · 68% evidence 9.2 / 15.9 pts

Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 12.2 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 77/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area215 km · 930 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 76/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Scale trails the selected-set median by 16 points.

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision68/100

Fit75/100

Now21/100

Quality9.2/10

Now21101 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.

Fit75.486% weight Now20.514% weight Decision68.0/100

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 snow101 cm 14.4 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow1 cm 0.5 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow19 cm 2.4 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow68 cm 3.2 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

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 19% 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.

San Remo

#5 · · San Remo

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 dataNo current update

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.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Grau RoigGrand Valira	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal	San RemoSan Remo
Assessment
Decision score	75/100	75/100	68/100	64/100	–
Structural Fit	82/100clear advantage	75/100	75/100	64/100	–
Current opportunity	30/100clear advantage	0/100	21/100	0/100	–
Overall quality	6.0/10	6.4/10	9.2/10clear advantage	8.7/10	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	68/100	59/100	76/100	78/100	–
Typical daytime high	3°C	4°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-2°C	-7°C	-6°C	–
Rating	8.1/10	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.4/10	–
Area size class	150–250 km	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km	–
Ability profile	advanced	intermediate	advanced	advanced	–
Price class	high	low	high	high	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	175 km	215 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km	–
Lowest point	1,000 m	1,710 m	1,562 m	1,472 m	–
Highest point	3,842 m	2,640 m	3,899 m	3,573 m	–
Vertical range	2,842 mclear advantage	930 m	2,337 m	2,101 m	–
Blue pistes	34%	47%	23%	22%	–
Red pistes	44%	38%	68%	62%	–
Black pistes	22%clear advantage	15%	8%	16%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	55%	–	92%clear advantage	57%	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	–	21%clear advantage	0%	–
Piste-mix diversity	97/100	92/100	74/100	84/100	–
Slope-angle diversity	86/100clear advantage	–	51/100	68/100	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	21%clear advantage	–	6%	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	–	–	Below typical-19% vs average · 23th percentile	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	Below typical-45% vs average · 55th percentile	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	30 cm	–	19 cm	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	100 cmclear advantage	–	68 cm	–	–
Mountain snow	147 cmclear advantage	–	101 cm	–	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm	1 cm	0 cm	–
Snow quality	–	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	–	2 cm	0 cm	–
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	556 pph/km	538 pph/km	298 pph/km	289 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.48×clear advantage	0.25×	0.28×	0.28×	–
Terrain per lift	2.5 km/lift	2.9 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	-3°C	-1°C	-4°C	-3°C	–
Maximum temperature	1°C	3°C	-2°C	-1°C	–
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–	–	family	–
Piste variety	slopes	slopes	slopes	slopes	–
Off-piste	offpiste	–	offpiste	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	lifts	lifts	lifts	–
Mountain restaurants	–	restaurants	restaurants	restaurants	–
Après-ski	–	–	apresski	apresski	–
Public transport	transit	–	transit	–	–
Best airport transfer	63 minclear advantage	–	104 min	441 min	–
Skiing per transfer hour	166 km/h transfer	–	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Chamonix

Chamonix

Resort overview

Chamonix

Grau Roig

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

San Remo

Detailed comparison