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 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. Wengen is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Chamonix

75/100
Why
  1. 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. Wengen is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 21 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 142 cm.
AlternativeWengen
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Wengen 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.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 21 h ago2.6 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 choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Wengen. 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 Wengen Snow now +2.4 pts and Terrain fit +1.4 pts
Snow now +2.4Terrain fit +1.4Access -0.8Snow reliability -0.3
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeWengen

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 3 and Wengen becomes the leading option.

Lead margin2.6pts

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 frontier4 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.

Lift systemWengen

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 3 and Wengen becomes the leading option.

14 → 3
Family & valueWengen

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 70 and Wengen becomes the leading option.

12 → 70
AccessWengen

Increase access weight from 12 to 75 and Wengen becomes the leading option.

12 → 75
ScaleWengen

Increase scale weight from 16 to 90 and Wengen becomes the leading option.

16 → 90
Why Chamonix leads Wengen · 2.6 pts
Lift system+3.4 pts
Current opportunity+2.4 pts
Scale-0.9 pts
Access-0.8 pts
Family & value-0.8 pts
Snow-0.3 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
Now29/100
Quality6.0/10
Now29142 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 Now28.714% weight Decision74.7/100
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 snow142 cm 20.3 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow97 cm 4.6 / 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+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 109% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.
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..

Wengen

#2 · Jungfrau Top Skiregion · Switzerland

Decision72/100
Fit77/100
Now19/100
Quality6.8/10
Now1989 cm upperReliability6868/100Terrain7878/100Access8763 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.

Fit76.792% weight Now19.38% weight Decision72.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow68/100 · 73% evidence 16.2 / 24.0 pts
Terrain83/100 · 80% evidence 18.2 / 22.0 pts
Scale98/100 · 85% evidence 15.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system45/100 · 68% evidence 6.3 / 14.0 pts
Access87/100 · 68% evidence 10.4 / 12.0 pts
Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 9.8 / 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 snow89 cm 19.3 / 65.2 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 34.8 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 46%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 79/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area204 km · 2,174 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m41%Best transfer63 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Praz sur Arly

#3 · Espace Diamant · France

Decision67/100
Fit67/100
Now0/100
Quality7.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5151/100Terrain7171/100Access8070 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.

Fit67.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision67.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow51/100 · 73% evidence 12.1 / 24.0 pts
Terrain60/100 · 80% evidence 13.1 / 22.0 pts
Scale84/100 · 100% evidence 13.4 / 16.0 pts
Lift system65/100 · 68% evidence 9.1 / 14.0 pts
Access80/100 · 68% evidence 9.6 / 12.0 pts
Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 9.9 / 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 typeEfficient short-break baseBest useFamily trips · 71/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area192 km · 1,069 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer70 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 51/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow trails the selected-set median by 19 points.

Breuil Cervinia

#4 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision65/100
Fit75/100
Now25/100
Quality9.2/10
Now25100 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.

Fit75.478% weight Now25.022% weight Decision64.5/100
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 snow100 cm 10.0 / 30.0 pts
Open terrain7% 1.4 / 20.0 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 16.0 pts
Valley snow19 cm 1.7 / 16.0 pts
Snow quality9.6/10 9.6 / 10.0 pts
Mid-mountain snow68 cm 2.3 / 8.0 pts

Data coverage: 100%

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 20% 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

#5 · 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.

Dreilandereck

#6 · · Austria

Decision31/100
Fit31/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3232/100Access28142 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.

Fit30.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision30.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow32/100 · 18% evidence 21.3 / 66.7 pts
Access28/100 · 48% evidence 9.4 / 33.3 pts
Family & valueNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded
ScaleNo data excluded
TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 10%

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 typeBalanced all-rounderSnow reliabilityLowSki area– · – verticalBest transfer142 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected date
Strengths
  • Mixed reliability match · 32/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
  • Mixed access match · 28/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Thurmansbang

#7 · Thurmansbang · Germany

Decision4/100
Fit4/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability1212/100Terrain00/100
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.

Fit3.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision3.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow12/100 · 36% evidence 3.8 / 32.4 pts
Terrain0/100 · 15% evidence 0.0 / 29.7 pts
Scale1/100 · 58% evidence 0.1 / 21.6 pts
Family & value0/100 · 18% evidence 0.0 / 16.2 pts
AccessNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded

Data coverage: 23%

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 typeSnow-led destinationSnow reliabilityLowSki area0 km · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 0/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 12/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Pfarrkirchen

#8 · · Germany

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.

Salzweg

#9 · · Germany

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.

Weiz

#10 · · Austria

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
AttributeChamonixChamonix ValleyWengenJungfrau Top SkiregionPraz sur ArlyEspace DiamantBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalDreilandereckAustriaThurmansbangThurmansbangPfarrkirchenGermanySalzwegGermanyWeizAustria
Assessment
Decision score 75/10072/10067/10065/10064/10031/1004/100–––
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage77/10067/10075/10064/10031/1004/100–––
Current opportunity 29/10019/1000/10025/1000/1000/1000/100–––
Overall quality 6.0/106.8/107.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/10–––––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10071/10075/10076/10078/10032/10023/100–––
Typical daytime high 3°C1°C3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C6°C3°C–––
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-6°C-4°C-7°C-6°C-1°C-4°C–––
Rating 8.1/107.4/106.8/108.1/107.4/10–––––
Area size class 150–250 km150–250 km150–250 km250+ km100–150 km–20km or less–––
Ability profile advancedintermediatenoviceadvancedadvanced–––––
Price class highhighavghighhigh–low–––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km204 km192 km322 kmclear advantage142 km–0 km–––
Lowest point 1,000 m796 m1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m–––––
Highest point 3,842 m2,970 m2,069 m3,899 m3,573 m–570 m–––
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,174 m1,069 m2,337 m2,101 m–––––
Blue pistes 34%40%69%23%22%–0%–––
Red pistes 44%44%26%68%62%–0%–––
Black pistes 22%clear advantage16%6%8%16%–0%–––
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%41%0%92%clear advantage57%–––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%0%21%clear advantage0%–––––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10093/10070/10074/10084/100–––––
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage73/10036/10051/10068/100–––––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage12%4%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 Well above typical+109% vs average · 92th percentile––Below typical-20% vs average · 23th percentile––––––
Valley snow versus typical –––Below typical-41% vs average · 57th percentile––––––
Open slopes versus typical –––Close to typical-21% vs average · 45th percentile––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm––19 cm––––––
Mid-mountain snow 97 cmclear advantage––68 cm––––––
Mountain snow 142 cmclear advantage89 cm–100 cm––––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–––
Snow quality –––9.6/10––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––7%––––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/kmclear advantage291 pph/km495 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km–––––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×clear advantage0.40×0.35×0.28×0.28×–––––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift4.1 km/lift2.4 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift–––––
Weather
Minimum temperature 2°C3°C4°C-7°C-2°C4°C0°C3°C3°C4°C
Maximum temperature 9°C9°C13°C-5°C6°C12°C11°C10°C11°C12°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability ––family–family–––––
Piste variety slopesslopesslopesslopesslopes–––––
Off-piste offpiste––offpiste––––––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network –lifts–liftslifts–––––
Mountain restaurants –––restaurantsrestaurants–––––
Après-ski –––apresskiapresski–––––
Public transport transittransittransittransit––––––
Best airport transfer 63 min63 min70 min104 min441 min142 min––––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer194 km/h transfer165 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–––––