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. Obergoms is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

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. Obergoms is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 12 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 142 cm.
AlternativeObergoms
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 12 h ago8.5 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 Obergoms Access +8.8 pts and Snow now +3.9 pts
Access +8.8Snow now +3.9Snow reliability -2.9Terrain fit -1.2
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeObergoms

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

What could change the resultReduce terrain weight from 22 to 1 and Obergoms becomes the leading option.

Lead margin8.5pts

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

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.

TerrainObergoms

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 1 and Obergoms becomes the leading option.

22 → 1
Family & valueObergoms

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

12 → 40
SnowBreuil Cervinia

Increase snow weight from 24 to 97 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

24 → 97
Why Chamonix leads Obergoms · 8.5 pts
Access+8.8 pts
Terrain+6.2 pts
Family & value-5.4 pts
Current opportunity+3.9 pts
Lift system-3.0 pts
Snow-2.9 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: Obergoms, Oberwald share Goms Oberwald. Permanent profile values are identical; current local observations may differ.

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 Decision74.6/100
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..

Obergoms

#2 · Goms Oberwald · Switzerland

Decision66/100
Fit66/100
Now0/100
Quality7.1/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6464/100Terrain6767/100
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.

Fit66.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision66.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow64/100 · 37% evidence 17.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain41/100 · 39% evidence 10.2 / 25.0 pts
Scale69/100 · 85% evidence 12.5 / 18.2 pts
Lift system77/100 · 8% evidence 12.2 / 15.9 pts
Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 34%

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 useAll-round trips · 66/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area31 km · 825 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 67/100 — led by substantial ski-area scale and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Oberwald

#3 · Goms Oberwald · Switzerland

Decision66/100
Fit66/100
Now0/100
Quality7.1/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6464/100Terrain6767/100
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.

Fit66.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision66.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow64/100 · 37% evidence 17.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain41/100 · 39% evidence 10.2 / 25.0 pts
Scale69/100 · 85% evidence 12.5 / 18.2 pts
Lift system77/100 · 8% evidence 12.2 / 15.9 pts
Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 34%

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 useAll-round trips · 66/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area31 km · 825 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 67/100 — led by substantial ski-area scale and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Breuil Cervinia

#4 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision64/100
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 Decision64.4/100
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.

Aigen

#6 · Hochficht · Austria

Decision57/100
Fit57/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4141/100Terrain6363/100
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.

Fit56.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision56.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow41/100 · 37% evidence 11.3 / 27.3 pts
Terrain51/100 · 44% evidence 12.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale58/100 · 100% evidence 10.5 / 18.2 pts
Lift system69/100 · 68% evidence 11.0 / 15.9 pts
Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 11.2 / 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 reliabilityModerateSki area20 km · 472 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated 4 days earlierPeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 41/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Hallstatt

#7 · Hallstatt · Austria

Decision49/100
Fit49/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4040/100Terrain5252/100
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.

Fit48.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision48.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow40/100 · 73% evidence 10.8 / 27.3 pts
Terrain40/100 · 59% evidence 9.9 / 25.0 pts
Scale7/100 · 100% evidence 1.3 / 18.2 pts
Lift system83/100 · 68% evidence 13.2 / 15.9 pts
Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 58%

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 · 66/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area0 km · 30 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m4%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 52/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 40/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Sonnenbuhl

#8 · Sonnenbuhl · Germany

Decision32/100
Fit32/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability1717/100Terrain3737/100
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.

Fit31.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision31.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow17/100 · 37% evidence 4.7 / 27.3 pts
Terrain0/100 · 15% evidence 0.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale9/100 · 58% evidence 1.7 / 18.2 pts
Lift system86/100 · 68% evidence 13.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value87/100 · 31% evidence 11.8 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 35%

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 · 51/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area1 km · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 37/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and strong family usability; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 17/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Fluntern

#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.

Schwagalp

#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 ValleyObergomsGoms OberwaldOberwaldGoms OberwaldBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalAigenHochfichtHallstattHallstattSonnenbuhlSonnenbuhlFlunternSwitzerlandSchwagalpSwitzerland
Assessment
Decision score 75/100clear advantage66/10066/10064/10064/10057/10049/10032/100––
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage66/10066/10075/10064/10057/10049/10032/100––
Current opportunity 29/1000/1000/10025/1000/1000/1000/1000/100––
Overall quality 6.0/107.1/10Shared ski-area value9.2/10clear advantage8.7/10–––––
Recommendation confidence MediumLowLowMediumMediumLowMediumLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10065/100Shared ski-area value76/10078/10057/10082/10022/100––
Typical daytime high 3°C0°CShared ski-area value-2°C1°C4°C3°C4°C––
Typical snow/freezing level ––Shared ski-area value–––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-7°CShared ski-area value-7°C-6°C-1°C-5°C-3°C––
Rating 8.1/10–Shared ski-area value8.1/107.4/107.3/10–6.8/10––
Area size class 150–250 km20–50 kmShared ski-area value250+ km100–150 km20–50 km20 km or less20 km or less––
Ability profile advancednoviceShared ski-area valueadvancedadvancedadvancednovicenovice––
Price class highhighShared ski-area valuehighhighavglowlow––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km31 kmShared ski-area value322 kmclear advantage142 km20 km0 km1 km––
Lowest point 1,000 m1,255 mShared ski-area value1,562 m1,472 m866 m522 m1,000 m––
Highest point 3,842 m2,080 mShared ski-area value3,899 m3,573 m1,338 m552 m820 m––
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage825 mShared ski-area value2,337 m2,101 m472 m30 m–––
Blue pistes 34%100%Shared ski-area value23%22%45%100%100%––
Red pistes 44%0%Shared ski-area value68%62%50%0%0%––
Black pistes 22%clear advantage0%Shared ski-area value8%16%5%0%0%––
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%–Shared ski-area value92%clear advantage57%–4%–––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%–Shared ski-area value21%clear advantage0%–0%–––
Piste-mix diversity 97/100clear advantage–Shared ski-area value74/10084/10078/100––––
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage–Shared ski-area value51/10068/100–74/100–––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage–Shared ski-area value6%2%–16%–––
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+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 advantage––100 cm––––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm––
Snow quality –––9.6/10––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––7%––––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km–Shared ski-area value298 pph/km289 pph/km747 pph/km2,000 pph/kmclear advantage1,805 pph/km––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×–Shared ski-area value0.28×0.28×0.38×0.67×0.90×clear advantage––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift2.6 km/liftShared ski-area value6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift2.2 km/lift0.3 km/lift0.3 km/lift––
Weather
Minimum temperature 2°C0°C-3°C-8°C1°C–6°C2°C4°C1°C
Maximum temperature 9°C3°C7°C-5°C7°C–12°C7°C9°C6°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability ––Shared ski-area value–family–––––
Piste variety slopes–Shared ski-area valueslopesslopes–––––
Off-piste offpiste–Shared ski-area valueoffpiste––––––
Cross-country ––Shared ski-area value–––––––
Lift network ––Shared ski-area valueliftslifts–––––
Mountain restaurants ––Shared ski-area valuerestaurantsrestaurants–––––
Après-ski ––Shared ski-area valueapresskiapresski–––––
Public transport transit–Shared ski-area valuetransit––––––
Best airport transfer 63 minclear advantage––104 min441 min–––––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer––186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–––––