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.

Selected4 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Bergamo narrowly leads because of strong access match · 79/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Recommendation limited by evidence

Bergamo

79/100

Why

Bergamo narrowly leads because of strong access match · 79/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 16 h ago

Strong overall decision score (79/100).

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

AlternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Chamonix 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

Bergamo

Access-led destinationLimited evidence

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

Why Bergamo leads Chamonix Access +69.7 pts

Access +69.7Terrain fit -47.4Snow reliability -14.6Snow now -6.7

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

What could change the resultIncrease scale weight from 16 to 25 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.1pts

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 frontier2 options

1 option is 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.

ScaleChamonix

Increase scale weight from 16 to 25 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

16 → 25

SnowChamonix

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 14 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

24 → 14

AccessChamonix

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

12 → 0

TerrainChamonix

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 60 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

22 → 60

Why Bergamo leads Chamonix · 1.1 pts

Access+69.7 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.

Bergamo

#1 · · Italy

Decision79/100

Fit79/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Access7974 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.

Fit78.5100% weight Now–0% weight Decision78.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Access79/100 · 48% evidence 78.5 / 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 transfer74 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.

Chamonix

#2 · 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..

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.

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	BergamoItaly	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal
Assessment
Decision score	79/100	77/100	68/100	64/100
Structural Fit	79/100	82/100	75/100	64/100
Current opportunity	–	49/100clear advantage	20/100	0/100
Overall quality	–	6.0/10	9.2/10clear advantage	8.7/10
Recommendation confidence	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	–	68/100	76/100	78/100
Typical daytime high	–	3°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	–	-4°C	-7°C	-6°C
Rating	–	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.4/10
Area size class	–	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km
Ability profile	–	advanced	advanced	advanced
Price class	–	high	high	high
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	–	175 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km
Lowest point	–	1,000 m	1,562 m	1,472 m
Highest point	–	3,842 m	3,899 m	3,573 m
Vertical range	–	2,842 mclear advantage	2,337 m	2,101 m
Blue pistes	–	34%	23%	22%
Red pistes	–	44%	68%	62%
Black pistes	–	22%clear advantage	8%	16%
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	55%	92%clear advantage	57%
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	0%	21%clear advantage	0%
Piste-mix diversity	–	97/100clear advantage	74/100	84/100
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 below typical-22% vs average · 19th percentile	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	Close to typical-4% vs average · 81th percentile	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	30 cm	19 cm	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	167 cmclear advantage	68 cm	–
Mountain snow	–	259 cmclear advantage	101 cm	–
Fresh snow	–	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Snow quality	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	–	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	556 pph/kmclear advantage	298 pph/km	289 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	–	0.48×clear advantage	0.28×	0.28×
Terrain per lift	–	2.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	–	8°C	3°C	3°C
Maximum temperature	–	17°C	14°C	13°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–	–	family
Piste variety	–	slopes	slopes	slopes
Off-piste	–	offpiste	offpiste	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	lifts	lifts
Mountain restaurants	–	–	restaurants	restaurants
Après-ski	–	–	apresski	apresski
Public transport	–	transit	transit	–
Best airport transfer	74 min	63 min	104 min	441 min
Skiing per transfer hour	–	166 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Bergamo

Bergamo

Resort overview

Bergamo

Chamonix

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Detailed comparison