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.

Selected7 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.

7 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

Morgins narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Morgins

77/100
Why
  1. Morgins narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.
Limited evidenceUpdated 11 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (77/100).

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

AlternativeChamonix
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Chamonix is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.
Limited evidenceUpdated 11 h ago2.2 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Morgins

Large-domain explorerEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Morgins leads Chamonix Terrain fit +6.9 pts
Terrain fit +6.9Snow now -3.9Snow reliability -0.7Access -0.1
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChamonix

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 6 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin2.2pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 2–3.

Evidence confidence69%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

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

3 options are dominated on commonly available dimensions.

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.

Lift systemChamonix

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 6 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

14 → 6
SnowChamonix

Increase snow weight from 24 to 55 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

24 → 55
TerrainChamonix

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 56 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

22 → 56
AccessChamonix

Increase access weight from 12 to 59 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 59
Why Morgins leads Chamonix · 2.2 pts
Lift system+4.5 pts
Current opportunity-3.9 pts
Family & value+2.4 pts
Snow-0.7 pts
Terrain-0.5 pts
Scale+0.5 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.

Morgins

#1 · Portes du Soleil · Switzerland

Decision77/100
Fit77/100
Now0/100
Quality6.3/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5858/100Terrain8585/100Access7389 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.

Fit76.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision76.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow58/100 · 73% evidence 13.9 / 24.0 pts
Terrain72/100 · 80% evidence 15.9 / 22.0 pts
Scale88/100 · 100% evidence 14.0 / 16.0 pts
Lift system98/100 · 8% evidence 13.7 / 14.0 pts
Access73/100 · 68% evidence 8.7 / 12.0 pts
Family & value88/100 · 41% evidence 10.6 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 65%

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 useFamily trips · 80/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area580 km · 1,269 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m8%Best transfer89 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

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 Decision74.6/100
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

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision64/100
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 Decision64.4/100
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

#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.

Bad Kohlgrub

#5 · Bad Kohlgrub · Germany

Decision43/100
Fit43/100
Now0/100
Quality2.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3434/100Terrain4141/100Access6669 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.

Fit42.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision42.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow34/100 · 73% evidence 8.2 / 24.0 pts
Terrain34/100 · 80% evidence 7.4 / 22.0 pts
Scale39/100 · 100% evidence 6.2 / 16.0 pts
Lift system18/100 · 68% evidence 2.5 / 14.0 pts
Access66/100 · 68% evidence 8.0 / 12.0 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 10.2 / 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 53/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area9 km · 485 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer69 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 41/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 34/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Freyung

#6 · Freyung Geyersberg · Germany

Decision36/100
Fit36/100
Now0/100
Quality2.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability1919/100Terrain4242/100
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.

Fit35.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision35.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow19/100 · 37% evidence 5.2 / 27.3 pts
Terrain8/100 · 39% evidence 2.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale10/100 · 100% evidence 1.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system83/100 · 68% evidence 13.2 / 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 · 57/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area1 km · 91 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 42/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 19/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Schopfheim

#7 · · 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.

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
AttributeMorginsPortes du SoleilChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalBad KohlgrubBad KohlgrubFreyungFreyung GeyersbergSchopfheimGermany
Assessment
Decision score 77/10075/10064/10064/10043/10036/100–
Structural Fit 77/10082/100clear advantage75/10064/10043/10036/100–
Current opportunity 0/10029/10025/1000/1000/1000/100–
Overall quality 6.3/106.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/102.0/102.5/10–
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 71/10068/10076/10078/10031/10034/100–
Typical daytime high 3°C3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C3°C3°C–
Typical snow/freezing level –––––––
Typical overnight low -3°C-4°C-7°C-6°C-3°C-4°C–
Rating 7.4/108.1/108.1/107.4/106.0/10––
Area size class 250+ km150–250 km250+ km100–150 km20 km or less20 km or less–
Ability profile intermediateadvancedadvancedadvancednovicenovice–
Price class highhighhighhighavgavg–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 580 kmclear advantage175 km322 km142 km9 km1 km–
Lowest point 985 m1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m915 m671 m–
Highest point 2,254 m3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m1,400 m762 m–
Vertical range 1,269 m2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m485 m91 m–
Blue pistes 53%34%23%22%67%100%–
Red pistes 36%44%68%62%33%0%–
Black pistes 10%22%clear advantage8%16%0%0%–
Terrain above 2,000 m 8%55%92%clear advantage57%0%––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%21%clear advantage0%0%––
Piste-mix diversity 85/10097/10074/10084/10092/100––
Slope-angle diversity 58/10086/100clear advantage51/10068/1008/100––
Very/extremely steep terrain 6%21%clear advantage6%2%0%––
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 percentileBelow 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 cm19 cm––––
Mid-mountain snow –97 cmclear advantage68 cm––––
Mountain snow –142 cmclear advantage100 cm––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–
Snow quality ––9.6/10––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––7%––––
Open lifts –––––––
Lift capacity per piste km –556 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km144 pph/km1,600 pph/kmclear advantage–
Lift-system coverage –0.48×0.28×0.28×0.30×1.00×clear advantage–
Terrain per lift 3.5 km/lift2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift4.5 km/lift0.6 km/lift–
Weather
Minimum temperature 3°C2°C-8°C1°C2°C3°C–
Maximum temperature 9°C9°C-5°C7°C7°C10°C–
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability family––family–––
Piste variety –slopesslopesslopes–––
Off-piste –offpisteoffpiste––––
Cross-country –––––––
Lift network ––liftslifts–––
Mountain restaurants ––restaurantsrestaurants–––
Après-ski ––apresskiapresski–––
Public transport transittransittransit–transit––
Best airport transfer 89 min63 min104 min441 min69 min––
Skiing per transfer hour 391 km/h transferclear advantage166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer8 km/h transfer––