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.

Selected9 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

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

Recommended

Chamonix

77/100

Why

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

Mixed evidenceUpdated 17 h ago

Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
Solid upper-mountain snow base at 259 cm.

AlternativeValetta

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.

Open webcams Show on map Inspect 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 Valetta Access +8.8 pts and Snow now +6.7 pts

Access +8.8Snow now +6.7Snow reliability -6.0Terrain fit -0.8

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

Strongest alternativeValetta

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 0 and Valetta becomes the leading option.

Lead margin8.7pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence73%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier4 options

2 options are dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Explore decision boundaries · what preference change flips the winner?

These are the smallest tested single-dimension changes that produce a different leader. Apply one to inspect that scenario; no new database query is required to calculate the boundary.

Lift systemValetta

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 0 and Valetta becomes the leading option.

14 → 0

SnowBreuil Cervinia

Increase snow weight from 24 to 85 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

24 → 85

Why Chamonix leads Valetta · 8.7 pts

Access+8.8 pts

Lift system+6.8 pts

Current opportunity+6.7 pts

Snow-6.0 pts

Scale-4.3 pts

Terrain-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.

Chamonix

#1 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision77/100

Fit82/100

Now49/100

Quality6.0/10

Now49259 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 Now48.814% weight Decision77.4/100

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 snow259 cm 37.0 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow167 cm 8.0 / 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+ m

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..

Valetta

#2 · Sankt Moritz Celerina · Switzerland

Decision69/100

Fit69/100

Now0/100

Quality9.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability7676/100Terrain6666/100

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.

Fit68.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision68.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow76/100 · 73% evidence 20.6 / 27.3 pts

Terrain77/100 · 80% evidence 19.3 / 25.0 pts

Scale98/100 · 85% evidence 17.9 / 18.2 pts

Lift system15/100 · 68% evidence 2.4 / 15.9 pts

Family & value63/100 · 41% evidence 8.6 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 63%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 72/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area329 km · 1,633 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m82%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Good reliability match · 76/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision68/100

Fit75/100

Now20/100

Quality9.2/10

Now20101 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.

Fit75.486% weight Now20.114% weight Decision67.8/100

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 snow101 cm 14.4 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow19 cm 2.4 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow68 cm 3.2 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

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 22% 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.

Silvaplana

#5 · Corvatsch Furtschellas · Switzerland

Decision58/100

Fit65/100

Now12/100

Quality9.2/10

Now1264 cm upperReliability8989/100Terrain6262/100Access31154 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.

Fit64.786% weight Now11.714% weight Decision57.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow89/100 · 37% evidence 21.3 / 24.0 pts

Terrain79/100 · 52% evidence 17.3 / 22.0 pts

Scale92/100 · 100% evidence 14.8 / 16.0 pts

Lift system11/100 · 68% evidence 1.5 / 14.0 pts

Access31/100 · 68% evidence 3.8 / 12.0 pts

Family & value50/100 · 41% evidence 6.0 / 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.

Mountain snow64 cm 9.1 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow5 cm 0.6 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow40 cm 1.9 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useSnow-first trips · 72/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area120 km · 1,506 m verticalBest transfer154 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 49% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Exceptional reliability match · 89/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Banska Bystrica

#6 · Banská Bystrica · Slovakia

Decision43/100

Fit43/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability3131/100Terrain4949/100

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.

Fit42.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision42.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow31/100 · 37% evidence 10.0 / 32.4 pts

Terrain49/100 · 44% evidence 14.6 / 29.7 pts

Scale27/100 · 85% evidence 5.8 / 21.6 pts

Family & value76/100 · 41% evidence 12.3 / 16.2 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

Data coverage: 37%

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-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 53/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area5 km · 302 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 49/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 31/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Valtellina

#7 · · Italy

Decision39/100

Fit39/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Access39127 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.

Fit39.3100% weight Now–0% weight Decision39.3/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Access39/100 · 48% evidence 39.3 / 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 transfer127 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected date

Strengths

Mixed access match · 39/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence..
Access is the strongest available structural dimension.

Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Aland

#8 · · Finland

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 3 days 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.

Bratislava

#9 · · Slovakia

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 6 days 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.

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	ChamonixChamonix Valley	ValettaSankt Moritz Celerina	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal	SilvaplanaCorvatsch Furtschellas	Banska BystricaBanská Bystrica	ValtellinaItaly	AlandFinland	BratislavaSlovakia
Assessment
Decision score	77/100clear advantage	69/100	68/100	64/100	58/100	43/100	39/100	–	–
Structural Fit	82/100clear advantage	69/100	75/100	64/100	65/100	43/100	39/100	–	–
Current opportunity	49/100clear advantage	0/100	20/100	0/100	12/100	0/100	–	–	–
Overall quality	6.0/10	9.0/10	9.2/10	8.7/10	9.2/10	–	–	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	68/100	74/100	76/100	78/100	77/100	42/100	–	–	–
Typical daytime high	3°C	-1°C	-2°C	1°C	-5°Cclear advantage	3°C	–	–	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-9°C	-7°C	-6°C	-11°C	-5°C	–	–	–
Rating	8.1/10	7.5/10	8.1/10	7.4/10	7.6/10	5.4/10	–	–	–
Area size class	150–250 km	250+ km	250+ km	100–150 km	100–150 km	20 km or less	–	–	–
Ability profile	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	–	–	–
Price class	high	high	high	high	high	–	–	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	175 km	329 km	322 km	142 km	120 km	5 km	–	–	–
Lowest point	1,000 m	1,670 m	1,562 m	1,472 m	1,797 m	800 m	–	–	–
Highest point	3,842 m	3,303 m	3,899 m	3,573 m	3,303 m	1,102 m	–	–	–
Vertical range	2,842 mclear advantage	1,633 m	2,337 m	2,101 m	1,506 m	302 m	–	–	–
Blue pistes	34%	21%	23%	22%	11%	40%	–	–	–
Red pistes	44%	60%	68%	62%	74%	60%	–	–	–
Black pistes	22%	19%	8%	16%	15%	0%	–	–	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	55%	82%	92%	57%	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	–	–	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	97/100	86/100	74/100	84/100	68/100	97/100	–	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	86/100clear advantage	48/100	51/100	68/100	–	–	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	21%clear advantage	4%	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 below typical-22% vs average · 19th percentile	–	Well below typical-49% vs average · 0th percentile	–	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	Close to typical-4% vs average · 81th percentile	–	Below typical-73% vs average · 29th percentile	–	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	30 cm	–	19 cm	–	5 cm	–	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	167 cmclear advantage	–	68 cm	–	40 cm	–	–	–	–
Mountain snow	259 cmclear advantage	–	101 cm	–	64 cm	–	–	–	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	–	–	–
Snow quality	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	556 pph/kmclear advantage	219 pph/km	298 pph/km	289 pph/km	153 pph/km	–	–	–	–
Lift-system coverage	0.48×clear advantage	0.18×	0.28×	0.28×	0.15×	–	–	–	–
Terrain per lift	2.5 km/lift	5.7 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	8.6 km/lift	–	–	–	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	8°C	2°C	4°C	3°C	6°C	3°C	4°C	7°C	12°C
Maximum temperature	17°C	6°C	13°C	13°C	11°C	14°C	16°C	12°C	23°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	family	–	family	–	–	–	–	–
Piste variety	slopes	–	slopes	slopes	–	–	–	–	–
Off-piste	offpiste	offpiste	offpiste	–	–	–	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	crosscountry	–	–	crosscountry	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	lifts	lifts	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	restaurants	restaurants	restaurants	–	–	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	apresski	apresski	–	–	–	–	–
Public transport	transit	–	transit	–	–	–	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	63 minclear advantage	–	104 min	441 min	154 min	–	127 min	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	166 km/h transfer	–	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer	47 km/h transfer	–	–	–	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Chamonix

Chamonix

Resort overview

Chamonix

Valetta

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Silvaplana

Banska Bystrica

Valtellina

Aland

Bratislava

Detailed comparison