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

Kaprun narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Kaprun

72/100
Why
  1. Kaprun narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 10 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
AlternativeChamonix
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Chamonix 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 10 h ago1.2 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Kaprun

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Kaprun leads Chamonix Snow reliability +2.7 pts and Snow now +0.7 pts
Snow reliability +2.7Terrain fit -1.5Access -0.9Snow now +0.7
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChamonix

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 8 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.2pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.

Evidence confidence73%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier3 options

3 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 systemBreuil Cervinia

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 8 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

14 → 8
SnowChamonix

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 14 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

24 → 14
TerrainChamonix

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 32 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

22 → 32
AccessChamonix

Increase access weight from 12 to 30 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 30
Why Kaprun leads Chamonix · 1.2 pts
Terrain-2.8 pts
Snow+2.7 pts
Lift system+0.9 pts
Access-0.9 pts
Current opportunity+0.7 pts
Family & value+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.

Kaprun

#1 · Zell am See Kaprun · Austria

Decision72/100
Fit82/100
Now9/100
Quality5.9/10
Now955 cm upperReliability8383/100Terrain8383/100Access7782 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.

Fit82.486% weight Now9.414% weight Decision72.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow83/100 · 73% evidence 20.0 / 24.0 pts
Terrain72/100 · 80% evidence 15.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale97/100 · 85% evidence 15.5 / 16.0 pts
Lift system83/100 · 68% evidence 11.7 / 14.0 pts
Access77/100 · 68% evidence 9.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 10.2 / 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 snow55 cm 7.9 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow33 cm 1.6 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 83/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area141 km · 2,269 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m90%Best transfer82 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 24% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision71/100
Fit82/100
Now4/100
Quality6.0/10
Now425 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 Now4.314% weight Decision71.2/100
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 snow25 cm 3.6 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow15 cm 0.7 / 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 63% below 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..

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision71/100
Fit75/100
Now28/100
Quality9.2/10
Now2863 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.

Fit75.490% weight Now28.410% weight Decision70.5/100
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 snow63 cm 11.3 / 53.6 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 28.6 pts
Snow quality9.6/10 17.1 / 17.9 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 56%

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 50% 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.

Damuls

#5 · Damuls Mellau Faschina · Austria

Decision62/100
Fit68/100
Now20/100
Quality8.5/10
Now2080 cm upperReliability5555/100Terrain7373/100Access7085 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.

Fit68.486% weight Now19.614% weight Decision61.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow55/100 · 73% evidence 13.1 / 24.0 pts
Terrain69/100 · 80% evidence 15.2 / 22.0 pts
Scale91/100 · 100% evidence 14.6 / 16.0 pts
Lift system59/100 · 68% evidence 8.3 / 14.0 pts
Access70/100 · 68% evidence 8.4 / 12.0 pts
Family & value74/100 · 41% evidence 8.9 / 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.

Mountain snow80 cm 11.4 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow40 cm 5.1 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow64 cm 3.0 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 70/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area76 km · 1,340 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m1%Best transfer85 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 mCalendar contextMountain snow is 171% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 73/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Solid reliability match · 55/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow trails the selected-set median by 18 points.

Einsiedeln

#6 · Einsiedeln · Switzerland

Decision40/100
Fit40/100
Now0/100
Quality2.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2828/100Terrain3636/100Access8242 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.

Fit39.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision39.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow28/100 · 37% evidence 6.7 / 24.0 pts
Terrain9/100 · 39% evidence 1.9 / 22.0 pts
Scale25/100 · 85% evidence 4.0 / 16.0 pts
Lift system57/100 · 8% evidence 7.9 / 14.0 pts
Access82/100 · 68% evidence 9.8 / 12.0 pts
Family & value77/100 · 31% evidence 9.2 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 44%

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-rounderBest useFamily trips · 53/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area7 km · 100 m verticalBest transfer42 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 36/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 28/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Urnasch

#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.

Eppendorf

#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 dataNo current update
Strengths
  • The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.
Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Luthern

#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.

Angon

#10 · · France

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
AttributeKaprunZell am See KaprunChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalDamulsDamuls Mellau FaschinaEinsiedelnEinsiedelnUrnaschSwitzerlandEppendorfGermanyLuthernSwitzerlandAngonFrance
Assessment
Decision score 72/10071/10071/10064/10062/10040/100––––
Structural Fit 82/10082/10075/10064/10068/10040/100––––
Current opportunity 9/1004/10028/100clear advantage0/10020/1000/100––––
Overall quality 5.9/106.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/108.5/102.5/10––––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 47/10068/10076/10078/10079/10029/100––––
Typical daytime high 6°C3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C3°C3°C––––
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -1°C-4°C-7°C-6°C-4°C-2°C––––
Rating 7.2/108.1/108.1/107.4/107.0/104.4/10––––
Area size class 100–150 km150–250 km250+ km100–150 km50–100 km20 km or less––––
Ability profile intermediateadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancednovice––––
Price class avghighhighhighavgavg––––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 141 km175 km322 kmclear advantage142 km76 km7 km––––
Lowest point 760 m1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m710 m1,100 m––––
Highest point 3,029 m3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m2,050 m1,200 m––––
Vertical range 2,269 m2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m1,340 m100 m––––
Blue pistes 44%34%23%22%39%100%––––
Red pistes 36%44%68%62%58%0%––––
Black pistes 20%22%8%16%3%0%––––
Terrain above 2,000 m 90%55%92%57%1%–––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 1%0%21%clear advantage0%0%–––––
Piste-mix diversity 96/10097/10074/10084/10071/100–––––
Slope-angle diversity 38/10086/100clear advantage51/10068/10048/100–––––
Very/extremely steep terrain 4%21%clear advantage6%2%6%–––––
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 Below typical-24% vs average · 21th percentileWell below typical-63% vs average · 0th percentileWell below typical-50% vs average · 4th percentile–Well above typical+171% vs average · 100th percentile–––––
Valley snow versus typical Close to typical0th percentile–––––––––
Open slopes versus typical ––––––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 0 cm0 cm––40 cmclear advantage–––––
Mid-mountain snow 33 cm15 cm––64 cmclear advantage–––––
Mountain snow 55 cm25 cm63 cm–80 cm–––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm––––
Snow quality ––9.6/10–––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––––––––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 711 pph/kmclear advantage556 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km556 pph/km–––––
Lift-system coverage 0.45×0.48×0.28×0.28×0.26×–––––
Terrain per lift 2.7 km/lift2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift3.6 km/lift1.0 km/lift––––
Weather
Minimum temperature 1°C2°C-1°C1°C0°C3°C2°C–4°C6°C
Maximum temperature 9°C9°C3°C7°C6°C7°C6°C–8°C13°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability family––familyfamily–––––
Piste variety –slopesslopesslopes––––––
Off-piste –offpisteoffpiste–––––––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network lifts–liftsliftslifts–––––
Mountain restaurants restaurants–restaurantsrestaurantsrestaurants–––––
Après-ski apresski–apresskiapresski––––––
Public transport transittransittransit–transittransit––––
Best airport transfer 82 min63 min104 min441 min85 min42 minclear advantage––––
Skiing per transfer hour 103 km/h transfer166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer54 km/h transfer10 km/h transfer––––