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

Brannenburg is the strongest match because of exceptional access match · 94/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommendation limited by evidence

Brannenburg

94/100
Why
  1. Brannenburg is the strongest match because of exceptional access match · 94/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options have limited evidence coverage.
Limited evidenceUpdated 20 h ago
  • Strong overall decision score (94/100).

Evidence coverage is limited; the ranking may move with new observations.

AlternativeChamonix
Main uncertaintyLimited evidence is available. Missing enriched fields are omitted rather than scored as zero.
Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.
Limited evidenceUpdated 20 h ago19.4 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Brannenburg

Access-led destinationLimited evidence

Leads on exceptional access match · 94/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence.

Why Brannenburg leads Chamonix Access +85.3 pts
Access +85.3Terrain fit -47.4Snow reliability -14.6Snow now -3.9
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintyLimited evidence is available. Missing enriched fields are omitted rather than scored as zero.

What could change the resultReduce access weight from 12 to 0 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin19.4pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence17%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier4 options

3 options are dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Lowest-regret optionChamonix · 94% robustness
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.

AccessChamonix

Reduce access weight from 12 to 0 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 0
Why Brannenburg leads Chamonix · 19.4 pts
Access+85.3 pts
Terrain-16.4 pts
Snow-14.6 pts
Scale-13.6 pts
Lift system-9.2 pts
Family & value-8.2 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.

Brannenburg

#1 · · Germany

Decision94/100
Fit94/100
Now–/100
Quality–/10
Access9453 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.

Fit94.1100% weight Now–0% weight Decision94.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Access94/100 · 48% evidence 94.1 / 100.0 pts
Family & valueNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded
ScaleNo data excluded
SnowNo data excluded
TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 6%

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 typeAccess-led destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalBest transfer53 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected date
Strengths
  • Exceptional access match · 94/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence..
  • Access is the strongest available structural dimension.
Consider

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

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision75/100
Fit82/100
Now29/100
Quality6.0/10
Now29142 cm upperReliability7171/100Terrain8686/100Access8563 min
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit81.986% weight Now28.714% weight Decision74.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow71/100 · 73% evidence 16.9 / 24.0 pts
Terrain86/100 · 80% evidence 19.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale98/100 · 85% evidence 15.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system76/100 · 68% evidence 10.7 / 14.0 pts
Access85/100 · 68% evidence 10.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value79/100 · 41% evidence 9.5 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 71%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow142 cm 20.3 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow97 cm 4.6 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 84/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area175 km · 2,842 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m55%Best transfer63 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 109% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Les Menuires

#3 · Trois Vallees · France

Decision70/100
Fit73/100
Now55/100
Quality9.1/10
Now55130 cm upperReliability6161/100Terrain7878/100Access7095 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.

Fit73.184% weight Now54.616% weight Decision70.1/100
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
Terrain66/100 · 80% evidence 14.6 / 22.0 pts
Scale100/100 · 100% evidence 16.0 / 16.0 pts
Lift system64/100 · 68% evidence 8.9 / 14.0 pts
Access70/100 · 68% evidence 8.4 / 12.0 pts
Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 10.6 / 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 snow130 cm 16.3 / 37.5 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 20.0 pts
Valley snow184 cm 20.0 / 20.0 pts
Snow quality9.6/10 12.0 / 12.5 pts
Mid-mountain snow152 cm 6.3 / 10.0 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 80%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 75/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area600 km · 2,130 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer95 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 24% 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

Snow trails the selected-set median by 10 points.

Breuil Cervinia

#4 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision65/100
Fit75/100
Now25/100
Quality9.2/10
Now25100 cm upperReliability9494/100Terrain7171/100Access61104 min
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit75.478% weight Now25.022% weight Decision64.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow94/100 · 73% evidence 22.5 / 24.0 pts
Terrain75/100 · 80% evidence 16.4 / 22.0 pts
Scale99/100 · 100% evidence 15.9 / 16.0 pts
Lift system40/100 · 68% evidence 5.6 / 14.0 pts
Access61/100 · 68% evidence 7.3 / 12.0 pts
Family & value64/100 · 41% evidence 7.7 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 74%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow100 cm 10.0 / 30.0 pts
Open terrain7% 1.4 / 20.0 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 16.0 pts
Valley snow19 cm 1.7 / 16.0 pts
Snow quality9.6/10 9.6 / 10.0 pts
Mid-mountain snow68 cm 2.3 / 8.0 pts

Data coverage: 100%

Destination typeHigh-alpine snow anchorBest useSnow-first trips · 81/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area322 km · 2,337 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m92%Best transfer104 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 20% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Exceptional reliability match · 94/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Saas

#5 · Saastal · Switzerland

Decision64/100
Fit64/100
Now0/100
Quality8.7/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7474/100Terrain7070/100Access10441 min
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit63.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision63.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow74/100 · 73% evidence 17.7 / 24.0 pts
Terrain74/100 · 80% evidence 16.3 / 22.0 pts
Scale97/100 · 85% evidence 15.5 / 16.0 pts
Lift system39/100 · 68% evidence 5.4 / 14.0 pts
Access10/100 · 68% evidence 1.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value63/100 · 41% evidence 7.6 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 71%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 70/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area142 km · 2,101 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m57%Best transfer441 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Uttendorf

#6 · Weisssee Glacier World · Austria

Decision58/100
Fit67/100
Now5/100
Quality5.5/10
Now530 cm upperReliability7171/100Terrain6262/100Access8753 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.

Fit66.786% weight Now5.114% weight Decision58.3/100
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
Terrain71/100 · 80% evidence 15.6 / 22.0 pts
Scale71/100 · 100% evidence 11.3 / 16.0 pts
Lift system36/100 · 68% evidence 5.0 / 14.0 pts
Access87/100 · 68% evidence 10.4 / 12.0 pts
Family & value62/100 · 41% evidence 7.4 / 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 snow30 cm 4.3 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow18 cm 0.9 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeAccess-led destinationBest useSnow-first trips · 68/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area23 km · 1,118 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m81%Best transfer53 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Donnersbachwald

#7 · Riesneralm · Austria

Decision54/100
Fit54/100
Now–/100
Quality6.8/10
Reliability4646/100Terrain5757/100
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.

Fit53.6100% weight Now–0% weight Decision53.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow46/100 · 73% evidence 12.4 / 27.3 pts
Terrain56/100 · 80% evidence 14.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale73/100 · 100% evidence 13.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system16/100 · 68% evidence 2.5 / 15.9 pts
Family & value84/100 · 41% evidence 11.4 / 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 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 58/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area33 km · 847 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Current dataNo current updatePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 57/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 46/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Gantrisch

#8 · Gantrisch · Switzerland

Decision42/100
Fit42/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3838/100Terrain4343/100
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.

Fit41.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision41.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow38/100 · 37% evidence 10.4 / 27.3 pts
Terrain42/100 · 44% evidence 10.4 / 25.0 pts
Scale29/100 · 100% evidence 5.3 / 18.2 pts
Lift system28/100 · 68% evidence 4.4 / 15.9 pts
Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 11.1 / 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 · 51/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area6 km · 250 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 43/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 38/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Pelham

#9 · · Germany

Decision–/100
Fit–/100
Now–/100
Quality–/10
Structural Fit calculation

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

AccessNo data excluded
Family & valueNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded
ScaleNo data excluded
SnowNo data excluded
TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Fresh snowNo data excluded
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Destination typeEvidence-limited destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected date
Strengths
  • The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.
Consider

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

Velké Karlovice

#10 · · Czech Republik

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.

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
AttributeBrannenburgGermanyChamonixChamonix ValleyLes MenuiresTrois ValleesBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalUttendorfWeisssee Glacier WorldDonnersbachwaldRiesneralmGantrischGantrischPelhamGermanyVelké KarloviceCzech Republik
Assessment
Decision score 94/100clear advantage75/10070/10065/10064/10058/10054/10042/100––
Structural Fit 94/100clear advantage82/10073/10075/10064/10067/10054/10042/100––
Current opportunity –29/10055/100clear advantage25/1000/1005/100–0/100––
Overall quality –6.0/109.1/109.2/108.7/105.5/106.8/10–––
Recommendation confidence LowMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability –68/10086/100clear advantage76/10078/10065/10066/10032/100––
Typical daytime high –3°C1°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C4°C4°C3°C––
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low –-4°C-5°C-7°C-6°C-4°C-4°C-3°C––
Rating –8.1/107.7/108.1/107.4/106.4/107.3/104.8/10––
Area size class –150–250 km250+ km250+ km100–150 km20–50 km20–50 km20 km or less––
Ability profile –advancednoviceadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancednovice––
Price class –highhighhighhighavgavgavg––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes –175 km600 kmclear advantage322 km142 km23 km33 km6 km––
Lowest point –1,000 m1,100 m1,562 m1,472 m1,482 m973 m1,340 m––
Highest point –3,842 m3,230 m3,899 m3,573 m2,600 m1,820 m1,590 m––
Vertical range –2,842 mclear advantage2,130 m2,337 m2,101 m1,118 m847 m250 m––
Blue pistes –34%56%23%22%26%45%67%––
Red pistes –44%34%68%62%65%46%33%––
Black pistes –22%clear advantage10%8%16%9%8%0%––
Terrain above 2,000 m –55%0%92%clear advantage57%81%0%–––
Terrain above 3,000 m –0%0%21%clear advantage0%0%0%–––
Piste-mix diversity –97/10084/10074/10084/10077/10084/10092/100––
Slope-angle diversity –86/100clear advantage40/10051/10068/10060/10034/100–––
Very/extremely steep terrain –21%clear advantage1%6%2%9%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+109% vs average · 92th percentileAbove typical+24% vs average · 58th percentileBelow typical-20% vs average · 23th percentile––––––
Valley snow versus typical ––Well above typical+998% vs average · 100th percentileBelow typical-41% vs average · 57th percentile––––––
Open slopes versus typical –––Close to typical-21% vs average · 45th percentile––––––
Current snow
Valley snow –30 cm184 cmclear advantage19 cm–0 cm––––
Mid-mountain snow –97 cm152 cmclear advantage68 cm–18 cm––––
Mountain snow –142 cm130 cm100 cm–30 cm––––
Fresh snow –0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–0 cm––
Snow quality ––9.6/109.6/10––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–0 cm0 cm–
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––7%––––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km –556 pph/kmclear advantage484 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km328 pph/km252 pph/km333 pph/km––
Lift-system coverage –0.48×clear advantage0.31×0.28×0.28×0.30×0.15×0.27×––
Terrain per lift –2.5 km/lift3.8 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift3.3 km/lift4.1 km/lift2.0 km/lift––
Weather
Minimum temperature 5°C2°C-6°C-8°C-2°C3°C–-5°C4°C–
Maximum temperature 10°C9°C-3°C-5°C6°C12°C–1°C10°C–
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability ––family–family–family–––
Piste variety –slopesslopesslopesslopes–––––
Off-piste –offpisteoffpisteoffpiste––––––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network ––liftsliftslifts–lifts–––
Mountain restaurants ––restaurantsrestaurantsrestaurants–––––
Après-ski –––apresskiapresski–––––
Public transport –transittransittransit–transit––––
Best airport transfer 53 min63 min95 min104 min441 min53 min––––
Skiing per transfer hour –166 km/h transfer379 km/h transferclear advantage186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer26 km/h transfer––––