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

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Sankt Blasien narrowly leads because of strong access match · 79/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Arinsal is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.

Recommendation limited by evidence

Sankt Blasien

79/100

Why

Sankt Blasien narrowly leads because of strong access match · 79/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Arinsal is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 18 h ago

Strong overall decision score (79/100).

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

AlternativeArinsal

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Arinsal is small. Limited 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.

Open webcams Show on map Inspect forecast

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Sankt Blasien

Access-led destinationLimited evidence

Leads on strong access match · 79/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence—but the result is close.

Why Sankt Blasien leads Arinsal Access +79.3 pts

Access +79.3Terrain fit -56.1Snow reliability -20.5

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

Strongest alternativeArinsal

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Arinsal is small. Limited 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 Arinsal becomes the leading option.

Lead margin2.8pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence17%

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.

Lowest-regret optionChamonix · 93% 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.

AccessArinsal

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

12 → 0

Family & valueArinsal

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 35 and Arinsal becomes the leading option.

12 → 35

ScaleChamonix

Increase scale weight from 16 to 66 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

16 → 66

Why Sankt Blasien leads Arinsal · 2.8 pts

Access+79.3 pts

Snow-20.5 pts

Terrain-17.3 pts

Scale-13.9 pts

Lift system-12.6 pts

Family & value-12.3 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.

Sankt Blasien

#1 · · Germany

Decision79/100

Fit79/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Access7973 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.

Fit79.3100% weight Now–0% weight Decision79.3/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Access79/100 · 48% evidence 79.3 / 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 transfer73 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected date

Strengths

Strong access match · 79/100 — 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.

Arinsal

#2 · Pal Arinsal · Andorra

Decision77/100

Fit77/100

Now0/100

Quality6.1/10

Now00 cm freshReliability7575/100Terrain7777/100

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.

Fit76.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision76.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow75/100 · 37% evidence 20.5 / 27.3 pts

Terrain69/100 · 52% evidence 17.3 / 25.0 pts

Scale76/100 · 100% evidence 13.9 / 18.2 pts

Lift system79/100 · 68% evidence 12.6 / 15.9 pts

Family & value90/100 · 41% evidence 12.3 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 51%

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 · 81/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area63 km · 987 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 77/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 75/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Scale trails the selected-set median by 10 points.

Chamonix

#3 · 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..

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.

Lysa Hora

#6 · Lysa Hora · Czech Republik

Decision57/100

Fit57/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4747/100Terrain6363/100

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.

Fit57.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow47/100 · 37% evidence 15.1 / 32.4 pts

Terrain55/100 · 44% evidence 16.4 / 29.7 pts

Scale50/100 · 85% evidence 10.8 / 21.6 pts

Family & value93/100 · 28% evidence 15.0 / 16.2 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

Data coverage: 36%

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 · 57/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area14 km · 658 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer 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 · 47/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Albiez

#7 · Albiez Montrond · France

Decision57/100

Fit57/100

Now0/100

Quality9.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6262/100Terrain5353/100Access6985 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.

Fit57.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.2/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow62/100 · 37% evidence 14.9 / 24.0 pts

Terrain55/100 · 52% evidence 12.1 / 22.0 pts

Scale62/100 · 100% evidence 9.9 / 16.0 pts

Lift system17/100 · 68% evidence 2.3 / 14.0 pts

Access69/100 · 68% evidence 8.3 / 12.0 pts

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

Data coverage: 59%

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 · 61/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area35 km · 580 m verticalBest transfer85 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 62/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Witzenhausen

#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.

Marostica

#9 · · Italy

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 1 day earlier

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.

Konigstein im Taunus

#10 · · 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.

Side-by-side evidence

Detailed comparison

Structural snow resilience uses the multi-winter early/core/late archive after daily de-duplication. Calendar-date rows separately compare current observations with the previous five years. Missing archive evidence remains unknown.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	Sankt BlasienGermany	ArinsalPal Arinsal	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal	Lysa HoraLysa Hora	AlbiezAlbiez Montrond	WitzenhausenGermany	MarosticaItaly	Konigstein im TaunusGermany
Assessment
Decision score	79/100	77/100	75/100	65/100	64/100	57/100	57/100	–	–	–
Structural Fit	79/100	77/100	82/100	75/100	64/100	57/100	57/100	–	–	–
Current opportunity	–	0/100	29/100	25/100	0/100	0/100	0/100	–	–	–
Overall quality	–	6.1/10	6.0/10	9.2/10	8.7/10	–	9.0/10	–	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Medium	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	–	63/100	68/100	76/100	78/100	74/100	56/100	–	–	–
Typical daytime high	–	5°C	3°C	-2°C	1°C	-1°C	1°C	–	–	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	–	-3°C	-4°C	-7°C	-6°C	-7°C	-5°C	–	–	–
Rating	–	7.9/10	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.4/10	–	6.3/10	–	–	–
Area size class	–	50–100 km	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km	20 km or less	20–50 km	–	–	–
Ability profile	–	intermediate	advanced	advanced	advanced	novice	novice	–	–	–
Price class	–	avg	high	high	high	–	avg	–	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	–	63 km	175 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km	14 km	35 km	–	–	–
Lowest point	–	1,550 m	1,000 m	1,562 m	1,472 m	657 m	1,520 m	–	–	–
Highest point	–	2,537 m	3,842 m	3,899 m	3,573 m	1,315 m	2,100 m	–	–	–
Vertical range	–	987 m	2,842 mclear advantage	2,337 m	2,101 m	658 m	580 m	–	–	–
Blue pistes	–	49%	34%	23%	22%	57%	71%	–	–	–
Red pistes	–	38%	44%	68%	62%	36%	20%	–	–	–
Black pistes	–	13%	22%clear advantage	8%	16%	7%	9%	–	–	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	55%	92%clear advantage	57%	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	–	–	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	–	89/100	97/100	74/100	84/100	80/100	70/100	–	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	–	–	86/100clear advantage	51/100	68/100	–	–	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	–	21%clear advantage	6%	2%	–	–	–	–	–
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 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 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	–	–	–
Snow quality	–	–	–	9.6/10	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	–	0 cm	–
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	7%	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	798 pph/kmclear advantage	556 pph/km	298 pph/km	289 pph/km	–	186 pph/km	–	–	–
Lift-system coverage	–	0.33×	0.48×clear advantage	0.28×	0.28×	–	0.22×	–	–	–
Terrain per lift	–	2.0 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	–	5.0 km/lift	–	–	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	2°C	4°C	3°C	-8°C	-1°C	1°C	3°C	–	9°C	–
Maximum temperature	9°C	16°C	10°C	-5°C	6°C	3°C	8°C	–	15°C	–
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	family	–	–	family	–	–	–	–	–
Piste variety	–	–	slopes	slopes	slopes	–	–	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	–	offpiste	offpiste	–	–	–	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	lifts	–	lifts	lifts	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	–	restaurants	restaurants	–	–	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	–	apresski	apresski	–	–	–	–	–
Public transport	–	–	transit	transit	–	–	transit	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	73 min	–	63 min	104 min	441 min	–	85 min	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	–	166 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer	–	25 km/h transfer	–	–	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Sankt Blasien

Sankt Blasien

Resort overview

Sankt Blasien

Arinsal

Chamonix

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Lysa Hora

Albiez

Witzenhausen

Marostica

Konigstein im Taunus

Detailed comparison