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.

Selected10 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.

10 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 is the strongest match 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. Breuil Cervinia is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

Chamonix

77/100
Why
  1. Chamonix is the strongest match 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. Breuil Cervinia is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 17 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 259 cm.
AlternativeBreuil Cervinia
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 17 h ago9.6 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Chamonix

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choice

Leads on 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.

Why Chamonix leads Breuil Cervinia Terrain fit +8.0 pts and Snow now +3.9 pts
Terrain fit +8.0Snow reliability -4.8Snow now +3.9Access +2.5
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeBreuil Cervinia

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

What could change the resultIncrease snow weight from 24 to 85 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

Lead margin9.6pts

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

4 options are 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.

SnowBreuil Cervinia

Increase snow weight from 24 to 85 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

24 → 85
Why Chamonix leads Breuil Cervinia · 9.6 pts
Snow-4.8 pts
Lift system+4.4 pts
Current opportunity+3.9 pts
Access+2.5 pts
Terrain+2.2 pts
Family & value+1.6 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

Decision77/100
Fit82/100
Now49/100
Quality6.0/10
Now49259 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 Now48.814% weight Decision77.4/100
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 snow259 cm 37.0 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow167 cm 8.0 / 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..

Breuil Cervinia

#2 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision68/100
Fit75/100
Now20/100
Quality9.2/10
Now20101 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 Now20.114% weight Decision67.8/100
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 snow0 cm 0.0 / 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 22% 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

#3 · 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.

Le Puy Saint Vincent

#4 · Puy Saint Vincent · France

Decision63/100
Fit63/100
Now0/100
Quality6.8/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6969/100Terrain6565/100Access44124 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.

Fit63.2100% 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.

Snow69/100 · 73% evidence 16.6 / 24.0 pts
Terrain75/100 · 80% evidence 16.5 / 22.0 pts
Scale82/100 · 100% evidence 13.0 / 16.0 pts
Lift system19/100 · 68% evidence 2.6 / 14.0 pts
Access44/100 · 68% evidence 5.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value77/100 · 41% evidence 9.2 / 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 · 67/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area75 km · 1,270 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m42%Best transfer124 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 65/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 69/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Aosta

#5 · 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.

Kranjska Gora

#6 · Kranjska Gora · Slovenia

Decision57/100
Fit57/100
Now0/100
Quality5.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3434/100Terrain6363/100Access7273 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.

Fit57.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow34/100 · 73% evidence 8.2 / 24.0 pts
Terrain49/100 · 80% evidence 10.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale50/100 · 100% evidence 8.0 / 16.0 pts
Lift system80/100 · 68% evidence 11.2 / 14.0 pts
Access72/100 · 68% evidence 8.6 / 12.0 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 10.2 / 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 65/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area20 km · 475 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer73 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 34/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Antagnod

#7 · Monte Rosa Ski · Italy

Decision57/100
Fit63/100
Now18/100
Quality7.5/10
Now1854 cm upperReliability5656/100Terrain6565/100Access7093 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.

Fit63.386% weight Now17.914% weight Decision57.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow56/100 · 73% evidence 13.4 / 24.0 pts
Terrain67/100 · 80% evidence 14.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale96/100 · 100% evidence 15.3 / 16.0 pts
Lift system30/100 · 68% evidence 4.2 / 14.0 pts
Access70/100 · 68% evidence 8.4 / 12.0 pts
Family & value61/100 · 41% evidence 7.3 / 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 snow54 cm 7.7 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow60 cm 7.6 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow54 cm 2.6 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 66/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area132 km · 2,063 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer93 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 30% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 65/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Solid reliability match · 56/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Jami

#8 · · Finland

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.

Hofn

#9 · · Iceland

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.

Kauppakatu

#10 · · Finland

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.

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible
AttributeChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalLe Puy Saint VincentPuy Saint VincentAostaPilaKranjska GoraKranjska GoraAntagnodMonte Rosa SkiJamiFinlandHofnIcelandKauppakatuFinland
Assessment
Decision score 77/100clear advantage68/10064/10063/10060/10057/10057/100–––
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage75/10064/10063/10060/10057/10063/100–––
Current opportunity 49/100clear advantage20/1000/1000/1000/1000/10018/100–––
Overall quality 6.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/106.8/106.2/105.0/107.5/10–––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10076/10078/10080/10058/10038/10055/100–––
Typical daytime high 3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C3°C3°C4°C2°C–––
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-7°C-6°C-4°C-3°C-2°C-5°C–––
Rating 8.1/108.1/107.4/106.6/107.3/106.3/107.2/10–––
Area size class 150–250 km250+ km100–150 km50–100 km50–100 km20 km or less100–150 km–––
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedintermediateadvanced–––
Price class highhighhighavgavglowlow–––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km322 kmclear advantage142 km75 km70 km20 km132 km–––
Lowest point 1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m1,407 m1,540 m807 m1,212 m–––
Highest point 3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m2,677 m2,740 m1,282 m3,275 m–––
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m1,270 m1,200 m475 m2,063 m–––
Blue pistes 34%23%22%37%16%50%22%–––
Red pistes 44%68%62%45%73%40%67%–––
Black pistes 22%clear advantage8%16%17%11%10%11%–––
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%92%clear advantage57%42%73%0%0%–––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%21%clear advantage0%0%0%0%0%–––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10074/10084/10094/10070/10086/10076/100–––
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage51/10068/10055/10049/10034/10033/100–––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage6%2%7%5%1%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 –Well below typical-22% vs average · 19th percentile––––Below typical-30% vs average · 27th percentile–––
Valley snow versus typical –Close to typical-4% vs average · 81th percentile––––Well above typical+260% vs average · 100th percentile–––
Open slopes versus typical ––––––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm19 cm––––60 cmclear advantage–––
Mid-mountain snow 167 cmclear advantage68 cm––––54 cm–––
Mountain snow 259 cmclear advantage101 cm––––54 cm–––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–––
Snow quality ––––––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–––
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––––––––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km265 pph/km372 pph/km917 pph/kmclear advantage266 pph/km–––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.28×0.28×0.17×0.29×0.47×0.24×–––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift6.8 km/lift5.8 km/lift1.3 km/lift6.3 km/lift–––
Weather
Minimum temperature 8°C4°C3°C8°C13°C8°C5°C–––
Maximum temperature 17°C13°C13°C22°C27°C18°C16°C–––
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability ––family–family–––––
Piste variety slopesslopesslopes–––slopes–––
Off-piste offpisteoffpiste––offpiste–offpiste–––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network –liftslifts–––––––
Mountain restaurants –restaurantsrestaurants–––––––
Après-ski –apresskiapresski–––––––
Public transport transittransit–––transittransit–––
Best airport transfer 63 min104 min441 min124 min153 min73 min93 min–––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer36 km/h transfer27 km/h transfer16 km/h transfer85 km/h transfer–––