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.

Selected8 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

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. Leysin is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Chamonix

75/100

Why

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. Leysin is the strongest alternative. 5 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 145 cm.

AlternativeLeysin

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.

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 Leysin. 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 Leysin Snow now +4.0 pts and Snow reliability +1.2 pts

Snow now +4.0Terrain fit -2.6Snow reliability +1.2Access +0.6

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

Strongest alternativeLeysin

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

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 35 and Leysin becomes the leading option.

Lead margin3.3pts

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 frontier5 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 systemLeysin

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 35 and Leysin becomes the leading option.

14 → 35

Family & valueLeysin

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 40 and Leysin becomes the leading option.

12 → 40

Why Chamonix leads Leysin · 3.3 pts

Current opportunity+4.0 pts

Lift system-2.9 pts

Terrain+2.3 pts

Family & value-1.9 pts

Snow+1.2 pts

Access+0.6 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

Decision75/100

Fit82/100

Now29/100

Quality6.0/10

Now29145 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 Now29.214% 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 snow145 cm 20.7 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow99 cm 4.7 / 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 133% 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..

Leysin

#2 · Leysin Les Mosses · Switzerland

Decision72/100

Fit72/100

Now0/100

Quality9.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability5656/100Terrain7878/100Access6893 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.

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.

Snow56/100 · 73% evidence 13.4 / 24.0 pts

Terrain64/100 · 80% evidence 14.1 / 22.0 pts

Scale86/100 · 85% evidence 13.7 / 16.0 pts

Lift system86/100 · 8% evidence 12.1 / 14.0 pts

Access68/100 · 68% evidence 8.2 / 12.0 pts

Family & value84/100 · 41% evidence 10.1 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 63%

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 · 74/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area100 km · 952 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m8%Best transfer93 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 56/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow trails the selected-set median by 10 points.

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision64/100

Fit75/100

Now22/100

Quality9.2/10

Now2275 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 Now22.022% weight Decision63.9/100

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 snow75 cm 7.5 / 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 snow53 cm 1.8 / 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 40% 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.

Colfosco

#5 · Alta Badia · Italy

Decision61/100

Fit66/100

Now27/100

Quality6.6/10

Now2781 cm upperReliability6161/100Terrain7878/100Access15210 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.

Fit66.186% weight Now26.914% weight Decision60.8/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow61/100 · 73% evidence 14.6 / 24.0 pts

Terrain63/100 · 80% evidence 13.9 / 22.0 pts

Scale86/100 · 100% evidence 13.7 / 16.0 pts

Lift system82/100 · 68% evidence 11.5 / 14.0 pts

Access15/100 · 68% evidence 1.8 / 12.0 pts

Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 10.7 / 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 snow81 cm 11.6 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow90 cm 11.4 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow81 cm 3.9 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 68/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area130 km · 1,454 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m23%Best transfer210 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 mCalendar contextMountain snow is 91% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 61/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Eischoll

#6 · Unterbach Eischoll · Switzerland

Decision52/100

Fit52/100

Now0/100

Quality7.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability5858/100Terrain5353/100Access34130 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.

Fit52.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision52.2/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow58/100 · 73% evidence 14.0 / 24.0 pts

Terrain53/100 · 80% evidence 11.6 / 22.0 pts

Scale54/100 · 100% evidence 8.7 / 16.0 pts

Lift system31/100 · 8% evidence 4.3 / 14.0 pts

Access34/100 · 68% evidence 4.0 / 12.0 pts

Family & value81/100 · 41% evidence 9.7 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 65%

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 · 56/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area15 km · 940 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m37%Best transfer130 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Innerferrera

#7 · · Switzerland

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.

Seetal

#8 · · Switzerland

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.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	ChamonixChamonix Valley	LeysinLeysin Les Mosses	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal	ColfoscoAlta Badia	EischollUnterbach Eischoll	InnerferreraSwitzerland	SeetalSwitzerland
Assessment
Decision score	75/100	72/100	64/100	64/100	61/100	52/100	–	–
Structural Fit	82/100clear advantage	72/100	75/100	64/100	66/100	52/100	–	–
Current opportunity	29/100	0/100	22/100	0/100	27/100	0/100	–	–
Overall quality	6.0/10	9.0/10	9.2/10	8.7/10	6.6/10	7.0/10	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	68/100	60/100	76/100	78/100	46/100	53/100	–	–
Typical daytime high	3°C	1°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C	3°C	1°C	–	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-5°C	-7°C	-6°C	-4°C	-5°C	–	–
Rating	8.1/10	7.3/10	8.1/10	7.4/10	8.2/10	6.4/10	–	–
Area size class	150–250 km	50–100 km	250+ km	100–150 km	100–150 km	20 km or less	–	–
Ability profile	advanced	novice	advanced	advanced	novice	novice	–	–
Price class	high	high	high	high	avg	avg	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	175 km	100 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km	130 km	15 km	–	–
Lowest point	1,000 m	1,253 m	1,562 m	1,472 m	1,324 m	1,260 m	–	–
Highest point	3,842 m	2,205 m	3,899 m	3,573 m	2,778 m	2,200 m	–	–
Vertical range	2,842 mclear advantage	952 m	2,337 m	2,101 m	1,454 m	940 m	–	–
Blue pistes	34%	66%	23%	22%	57%	67%	–	–
Red pistes	44%	30%	68%	62%	36%	30%	–	–
Black pistes	22%clear advantage	4%	8%	16%	7%	3%	–	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	55%	8%	92%clear advantage	57%	23%	37%	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	0%	0%	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	97/100clear advantage	70/100	74/100	84/100	79/100	68/100	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	86/100clear advantage	59/100	51/100	68/100	28/100	42/100	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	21%clear advantage	7%	6%	2%	3%	1%	–	–
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+133% vs average · 100th percentile	–	Well below typical-40% vs average · 4th percentile	–	Well above typical+91% vs average · 100th percentile	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	Below typical-40% vs average · 58th percentile	–	Well above typical+350% vs average · 100th percentile	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	Close to typical-21% vs average · 46th percentile	–	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	30 cm	–	19 cm	–	90 cmclear advantage	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	99 cm	–	53 cm	–	81 cm	–	–	–
Mountain snow	145 cmclear advantage	–	75 cm	–	81 cm	–	–	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	–	–
Snow quality	–	–	9.6/10	–	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	7%	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	556 pph/km	–	298 pph/km	289 pph/km	760 pph/kmclear advantage	–	–	–
Lift-system coverage	0.48×clear advantage	–	0.28×	0.28×	0.38×	–	–	–
Terrain per lift	2.5 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	3.8 km/lift	–	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	4°C	1°C	1°C	1°C	2°C	3°C	3°C	-3°C
Maximum temperature	11°C	8°C	9°C	6°C	10°C	21°C	9°C	6°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	family	–	family	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	apresski	–	–	–
Public transport	transit	transit	transit	–	transit	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	63 minclear advantage	93 min	104 min	441 min	210 min	130 min	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	166 km/h transfer	65 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer	37 km/h transfer	7 km/h transfer	–	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Chamonix

Chamonix

Resort overview

Chamonix

Leysin

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Colfosco

Eischoll

Innerferrera

Seetal

Detailed comparison