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.

Selected9 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.

9 of 10 selected
Export
Add resorts

Balances permanent quality, snow reliability, terrain and current conditions.

Tune prioritiesBalanced
Decision weights

Missing resort data remain eligible: unavailable evidence is omitted and confidence falls instead of the resort receiving a zero.

More comparison optionsTrip context · direct add · display
Fit = structural suitabilityNow = current opportunityDecision combines both when timing makes current conditions relevant
How Benchmark works

Priorities determine the structural ranking; optional trip context refines those priorities without excluding a resort. Evidence describes data support, Stability tests nearby priority changes, and Frontier marks a non-dominated option on comparable evidence.

Trip contextOptional

Use these only when they matter for this trip. They adjust ranking and interpretation; they are not hidden filters.

Travel origin is preserved with the decision state; access scoring uses the selected arrival hub when one is chosen.
Display options
Comparison sections
Decision horizon
Recommendation

Decision summary

Chamonix narrowly leads 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. Breuil Cervinia is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Chamonix

71/100
Why
  1. Chamonix narrowly leads 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. Breuil Cervinia is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 10 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
AlternativeBreuil Cervinia
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Breuil Cervinia 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 ago0.7 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Chamonix

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Breuil Cervinia. 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—but the result is close.

Why Chamonix leads Breuil Cervinia Terrain fit +6.5 pts and Access +2.3 pts
Terrain fit +6.5Snow reliability -5.6Snow now -2.4Access +2.3
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeBreuil Cervinia

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 11 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.7pts

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

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 11 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

14 → 11
SnowBreuil Cervinia

Increase snow weight from 24 to 27 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

24 → 27
AccessBreuil Cervinia

Reduce access weight from 12 to 8 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

12 → 8
Family & valueBreuil Cervinia

Reduce family & value weight from 12 to 3 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

12 → 3
Why Chamonix leads Breuil Cervinia · 0.7 pts
Snow-5.6 pts
Lift system+4.2 pts
Current opportunity-2.4 pts
Access+2.3 pts
Terrain+1.7 pts
Family & value+1.3 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.

Chamonix

#1 · 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

#2 · 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

#3 · 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.

Wildschonau

#4 · Ski Juwel Alpbachtal Wildschonau · Austria

Decision61/100
Fit69/100
Now7/100
Quality5.1/10
Now740 cm upperReliability5050/100Terrain7474/100Access8368 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.

Fit69.286% weight Now6.914% weight Decision60.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow50/100 · 73% evidence 12.1 / 24.0 pts
Terrain63/100 · 80% evidence 13.9 / 22.0 pts
Scale90/100 · 85% evidence 14.3 / 16.0 pts
Lift system72/100 · 68% evidence 10.1 / 14.0 pts
Access83/100 · 68% evidence 10.0 / 12.0 pts
Family & value73/100 · 41% evidence 8.8 / 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 snow40 cm 5.7 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow24 cm 1.1 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useShort breaks · 71/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area98 km · 1,200 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m1%Best transfer68 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 mCalendar contextMountain snow is 35% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 50/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Across the commonly available decision dimensions, Chamonix Valley is at least as strong and meaningfully better on one or more dimensions.

Unteriberg

#5 · Hoch Ybrig · Switzerland

Decision59/100
Fit59/100
Now0/100
Quality8.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4444/100Terrain6060/100Access8852 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.

Fit59.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision59.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow44/100 · 73% evidence 10.4 / 24.0 pts
Terrain64/100 · 80% evidence 14.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale78/100 · 100% evidence 12.5 / 16.0 pts
Lift system27/100 · 68% evidence 3.8 / 14.0 pts
Access88/100 · 68% evidence 10.5 / 12.0 pts
Family & value67/100 · 41% evidence 8.1 / 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.

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 typeAccess-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 60/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area50 km · 791 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer52 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 60/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Sundern

#6 · Sundern · Germany

Decision42/100
Fit42/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability1111/100Terrain5353/100
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.

Fit41.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision41.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow11/100 · 36% evidence 2.9 / 27.3 pts
Terrain60/100 · 28% evidence 14.9 / 25.0 pts
Scale33/100 · 58% evidence 6.1 / 18.2 pts
Lift system41/100 · 68% evidence 6.4 / 15.9 pts
Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.3 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 39%

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 · 50/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area7 km · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 11/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Brotterode

#7 · Brotterode · Germany

Decision31/100
Fit31/100
Now0/100
Quality2.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability1313/100Terrain3838/100
Decision score composition

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

Fit31.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision31.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow13/100 · 37% evidence 3.6 / 27.3 pts
Terrain7/100 · 39% evidence 1.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale11/100 · 100% evidence 1.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system63/100 · 68% evidence 10.0 / 15.9 pts
Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 45%

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 · 52/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area1 km · 96 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 38/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 13/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Rivaz

#8 · · 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.

Herisau

#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.

Side-by-side evidence

Detailed comparison

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

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible
AttributeChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalWildschonauSki Juwel Alpbachtal WildschonauUnteribergHoch YbrigSundernSundernBrotterodeBrotterodeRivazSwitzerlandHerisauSwitzerland
Assessment
Decision score 71/10071/10064/10061/10059/10042/10031/100––
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage75/10064/10069/10059/10042/10031/100––
Current opportunity 4/10028/100clear advantage0/1007/1000/1000/1000/100––
Overall quality 6.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/105.1/108.2/10–2.0/10––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10076/10078/10053/10052/10018/10022/100––
Typical daytime high 3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C4°C3°C5°C4°C––
Typical snow/freezing level –––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-7°C-6°C-3°C-4°C-1°C-2°C––
Rating 8.1/108.1/107.4/107.3/106.6/104.8/10–––
Area size class 150–250 km250+ km100–150 km50–100 km20–50 km20 km or less20 km or less––
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancednovicenovice––
Price class highhighhighhighhighlowavg––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km322 kmclear advantage142 km98 km50 km7 km1 km––
Lowest point 1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m830 m1,040 m–608 m––
Highest point 3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m2,030 m1,831 m645 m704 m––
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m1,200 m791 m–96 m––
Blue pistes 34%23%22%33%30%57%100%––
Red pistes 44%68%62%54%60%43%0%––
Black pistes 22%clear advantage8%16%13%10%0%0%––
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%92%clear advantage57%1%0%––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%21%clear advantage0%0%0%––––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10074/10084/10088/10082/10099/100–––
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage51/10068/10042/10039/100––––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage6%2%1%4%––––
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-63% vs average · 0th percentileWell below typical-50% vs average · 4th percentile–Well above typical+35% vs average · 100th percentile–––––
Valley snow versus typical –––Close to typical0th percentile–––––
Open slopes versus typical –––––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 0 cm––0 cm–––––
Mid-mountain snow 15 cm––24 cm–––––
Mountain snow 25 cm63 cm–40 cm–––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm––
Snow quality –9.6/10–––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––––––––
Open lifts –––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km588 pph/km291 pph/km500 pph/km557 pph/km––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.28×0.28×0.36×0.22×0.23×1.00×clear advantage––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift2.2 km/lift4.2 km/lift1.4 km/lift0.7 km/lift––
Weather
Minimum temperature 2°C-1°C1°C2°C3°C5°C3°C8°C4°C
Maximum temperature 9°C3°C7°C7°C8°C7°C8°C12°C8°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability ––familyfamilyfamily––––
Piste variety slopesslopesslopes––––––
Off-piste offpisteoffpiste–––––––
Cross-country –––crosscountry–––––
Lift network –liftsliftslifts–––––
Mountain restaurants –restaurantsrestaurantsrestaurants–––––
Après-ski –apresskiapresski––––––
Public transport transittransit–transittransit––––
Best airport transfer 63 min104 min441 min68 min52 min––––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer86 km/h transfer58 km/h transfer––––