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

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Narrow lead

Chamonix

75/100
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. Gibidum is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 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.
AlternativeGibidum
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 24 h ago3.8 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 choiceNarrow lead

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 Gibidum Access +8.8 pts and Snow now +4.0 pts
Access +8.8Snow reliability -5.5Snow now +4.0Terrain fit -3.5
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeGibidum

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 4 and Tracuit becomes the leading option.

Lead margin3.8pts

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

2 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.

Lift systemTracuit

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 4 and Tracuit becomes the leading option.

14 → 4
ScaleGibidum

Increase scale weight from 16 to 53 and Gibidum becomes the leading option.

16 → 53
SnowGibidum

Increase snow weight from 24 to 67 and Gibidum becomes the leading option.

24 → 67
TerrainTracuit

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 70 and Tracuit becomes the leading option.

22 → 70
Why Chamonix leads Gibidum · 3.8 pts
Access+8.8 pts
Snow-5.5 pts
Scale-4.0 pts
Current opportunity+4.0 pts
Lift system+3.0 pts
Terrain-2.1 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.

Shared ski-area data: Gibidum, Saas share Saastal. Permanent profile values are identical; current local observations may differ.

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..

Gibidum

#2 · Saastal · Switzerland

Decision71/100
Fit71/100
Now0/100
Quality8.7/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7474/100Terrain7070/100
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.

Fit71.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision71.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow74/100 · 73% evidence 20.1 / 27.3 pts
Terrain74/100 · 80% evidence 18.5 / 25.0 pts
Scale97/100 · 85% evidence 17.6 / 18.2 pts
Lift system39/100 · 68% evidence 6.2 / 15.9 pts
Family & value63/100 · 41% evidence 8.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

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 useAdvanced skiing · 73/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area142 km · 2,101 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m57%Current 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

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Tracuit

#3 · Grimentz Zinal · Switzerland

Decision70/100
Fit70/100
Now0/100
Quality9.1/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7373/100Terrain6868/100
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.

Fit69.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision69.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow73/100 · 73% evidence 19.9 / 27.3 pts
Terrain88/100 · 80% evidence 22.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale84/100 · 100% evidence 15.3 / 18.2 pts
Lift system19/100 · 68% evidence 3.1 / 15.9 pts
Family & value68/100 · 41% evidence 9.3 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 66%

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 typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 75/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area115 km · 1,330 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m82%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 68/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 73/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Breuil Cervinia

#4 · 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

#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.

Formazza

#6 · Formazza · Italy

Decision55/100
Fit55/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4949/100Terrain5757/100
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.

Fit54.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision54.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow49/100 · 37% evidence 13.3 / 27.3 pts
Terrain54/100 · 44% evidence 13.5 / 25.0 pts
Scale29/100 · 100% evidence 5.3 / 18.2 pts
Lift system72/100 · 68% evidence 11.5 / 15.9 pts
Family & value84/100 · 41% evidence 11.4 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 49%

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 · 64/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area3 km · 474 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 57/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 49/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Triftchumme

#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.

Malliga

#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.

Kuhboden

#9 · · 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.

Oberer Stelligletscher

#10 · · 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.

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible
AttributeChamonixChamonix ValleyGibidumSaastalTracuitGrimentz ZinalBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalFormazzaFormazzaTriftchummeSwitzerlandMalligaSwitzerlandKuhbodenSwitzerlandOberer StelligletscherSwitzerland
Assessment
Decision score 75/10071/10070/10064/10064/10055/100––––
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage71/10070/10075/10064/10055/100––––
Current opportunity 29/100clear advantage0/1000/10022/1000/1000/100––––
Overall quality 6.0/108.7/109.1/109.2/10Shared ski-area value–––––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10078/10067/10076/100Shared ski-area value46/100––––
Typical daytime high 3°C1°C0°C-2°Cclear advantageShared ski-area value3°C––––
Typical snow/freezing level ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-6°C-6°C-7°CShared ski-area value-5°C––––
Rating 8.1/107.4/107.8/108.1/10Shared ski-area value4.8/10––––
Area size class 150–250 km100–150 km100–150 km250+ kmShared ski-area value20 km or less––––
Ability profile advancedadvancedexpertadvancedShared ski-area valueadvanced––––
Price class highhighhighhighShared ski-area value–––––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km142 km115 km322 kmclear advantageShared ski-area value3 km––––
Lowest point 1,000 m1,472 m1,570 m1,562 mShared ski-area value1,298 m––––
Highest point 3,842 m3,573 m2,900 m3,899 mShared ski-area value1,772 m––––
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,101 m1,330 m2,337 mShared ski-area value474 m––––
Blue pistes 34%22%23%23%Shared ski-area value50%––––
Red pistes 44%62%51%68%Shared ski-area value50%––––
Black pistes 22%16%26%8%Shared ski-area value0%––––
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%57%82%92%Shared ski-area value–––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%0%21%clear advantageShared ski-area value–––––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10084/10094/10074/100Shared ski-area value100/100––––
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage68/10073/10051/100Shared ski-area value–––––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage2%11%6%Shared ski-area value–––––
Historical context
Historical snow resilience ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Typical early-winter mountain depth ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Typical core-winter mountain depth ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Typical late-winter mountain depth ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Snow consistency ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Late-winter retention ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Lower-mountain retention ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Warm-winter resilience ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Mountain snow versus typical Well above typical+133% vs average · 100th percentile––Well below typical-40% vs average · 4th percentile––––––
Valley snow versus typical –––Below typical-40% vs average · 58th percentile––––––
Open slopes versus typical –––Close to typical-21% vs average · 46th percentile––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm––19 cm––––––
Mid-mountain snow 99 cmclear advantage––53 cm––––––
Mountain snow 145 cmclear advantage––75 cm––––––
Fresh snow 0 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/km289 pph/km210 pph/km298 pph/kmShared ski-area value774 pph/kmclear advantage––––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.28×0.20×0.28×Shared ski-area value0.60×clear advantage––––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift3.6 km/lift5.5 km/lift6.3 km/liftShared ski-area value1.0 km/lift––––
Weather
Minimum temperature 4°C-6°C-6°C1°C1°C0°C-9°C-7°C-4°C-6°C
Maximum temperature 11°C2°C4°C9°C6°C5°C1°C0°C5°C4°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –familyfamily–Shared ski-area value–––––
Piste variety slopesslopesslopesslopesShared ski-area value–––––
Off-piste offpiste–offpisteoffpisteShared ski-area value–––––
Cross-country ––––Shared ski-area value–––––
Lift network –lifts–liftsShared ski-area value–––––
Mountain restaurants –restaurants–restaurantsShared ski-area value–––––
Après-ski –apresski–apresskiShared ski-area value–––––
Public transport transit––transitShared ski-area value–––––
Best airport transfer 63 minclear advantage––104 min441 min–––––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer––186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–––––