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.

Selected8 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.

8 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 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. Arabba is the strongest alternative. 6 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Narrow lead

Chamonix

82/100
Why
  1. 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. Arabba is the strongest alternative. 6 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.
Limited evidenceUpdated 22 min ago
  • Strong overall decision score (82/100).

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

AlternativeArabba
Main uncertaintyMost 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 22 min ago3.9 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 choiceNarrow lead

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 Arabba Access +6.0 pts and Terrain fit +2.7 pts
Access +6.0Snow reliability -4.7Terrain fit +2.7
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeArabba

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

What could change the resultReduce access weight from 12 to 4 and Arabba becomes the leading option.

Lead margin3.9pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence75%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier6 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.

AccessArabba

Reduce access weight from 12 to 4 and Arabba becomes the leading option.

12 → 4
SnowArabba

Increase snow weight from 24 to 45 and Arabba becomes the leading option.

24 → 45
Lift systemChampery

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 39 and Champery becomes the leading option.

14 → 39
Family & valueChampery

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 69 and Champery becomes the leading option.

12 → 69
Why Chamonix leads Arabba · 3.9 pts
Access+6.0 pts
Snow-4.7 pts
Scale+2.5 pts
Terrain+1.0 pts
Lift system-1.0 pts
Family & value+0.2 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.

Chamonix

#1 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision82/100
Fit82/100
Now–/100
Quality6.0/10
Reliability7171/100Terrain8686/100Access8563 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.

Fit81.9100% weight Now–0% weight Decision81.9/100
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.

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 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..

Arabba

#2 · Arabba Marmolada · Italy

Decision78/100
Fit78/100
Now–/100
Quality9.5/10
Reliability9090/100Terrain8282/100Access35136 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.

Fit78.0100% weight Now–0% weight Decision78.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow90/100 · 73% evidence 21.6 / 24.0 pts
Terrain82/100 · 80% evidence 18.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale83/100 · 100% evidence 13.2 / 16.0 pts
Lift system83/100 · 68% evidence 11.7 / 14.0 pts
Access35/100 · 68% evidence 4.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value78/100 · 41% evidence 9.3 / 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 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useSnow-first trips · 82/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area63 km · 1,823 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m65%Best transfer136 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 82/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Exceptional reliability match · 90/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Champery

#3 · Portes du Soleil · Switzerland

Decision77/100
Fit77/100
Now–/100
Quality6.3/10
Reliability5858/100Terrain8585/100Access7192 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.

Fit76.7100% weight Now–0% weight Decision76.7/100
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
Access71/100 · 68% evidence 8.6 / 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 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 79/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area580 km · 1,269 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m8%Best transfer92 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..
Consider

Snow trails the selected-set median by 14 points.

Breuil Cervinia

#4 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision75/100
Fit75/100
Now–/100
Quality9.2/10
Reliability9494/100Terrain7171/100Access61104 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.

Fit75.4100% weight Now–0% weight Decision75.4/100
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.

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 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+ m
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.

Arolla

#5 · Arolla · Switzerland

Decision64/100
Fit64/100
Now–/100
Quality9.5/10
Reliability9393/100Terrain5959/100Access34139 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.

Fit64.2100% weight Now–0% weight Decision64.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow93/100 · 73% evidence 22.4 / 24.0 pts
Terrain67/100 · 80% evidence 14.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale71/100 · 100% evidence 11.4 / 16.0 pts
Lift system11/100 · 68% evidence 1.6 / 14.0 pts
Access34/100 · 68% evidence 4.1 / 12.0 pts
Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 9.9 / 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 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useSnow-first trips · 74/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area27 km · 893 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m99%Best transfer139 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 59/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Exceptional reliability match · 93/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Saas

#6 · Saastal · Switzerland

Decision64/100
Fit64/100
Now–/100
Quality8.7/10
Reliability7474/100Terrain7070/100Access10441 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 Now–0% 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 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 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.

Combloux

#7 · Les Portes du Mont Blanc · France

Decision59/100
Fit59/100
Now–/100
Quality6.0/10
Reliability4545/100Terrain5959/100Access8957 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.

Fit59.3100% weight Now–0% weight Decision59.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow45/100 · 73% evidence 10.7 / 24.0 pts
Terrain58/100 · 80% evidence 12.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale77/100 · 100% evidence 12.3 / 16.0 pts
Lift system31/100 · 68% evidence 4.3 / 14.0 pts
Access89/100 · 68% evidence 10.7 / 12.0 pts
Family & value71/100 · 41% evidence 8.5 / 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 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 destinationBest useFamily trips · 62/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area85 km · 910 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer57 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 59/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 45/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Grunten

#8 · Grunten · Germany

Decision50/100
Fit50/100
Now–/100
Quality4.0/10
Reliability3737/100Terrain5454/100
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.

Fit49.5100% weight Now–0% weight Decision49.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow37/100 · 37% evidence 10.1 / 27.3 pts
Terrain49/100 · 52% evidence 12.1 / 25.0 pts
Scale60/100 · 100% evidence 10.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system62/100 · 8% evidence 9.9 / 15.9 pts
Family & value48/100 · 41% evidence 6.5 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 42%

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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useAdvanced skiing · 50/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area17 km · 800 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 37/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

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 ValleyArabbaArabba MarmoladaChamperyPortes du SoleilBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseArollaArollaSaasSaastalComblouxLes Portes du Mont BlancGruntenGrunten
Assessment
Decision score 82/10078/10077/10075/10064/10064/10059/10050/100
Structural Fit 82/10078/10077/10075/10064/10064/10059/10050/100
Current opportunity ––––––––
Overall quality 6.0/109.5/106.3/109.2/109.5/108.7/106.0/104.0/10
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10081/10071/10076/10085/10078/10052/10026/100
Typical daytime high 3°C-2°C3°C-2°C-1°C1°C10°C4°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-9°C-3°C-7°C-7°C-6°C1°C-3°C
Rating 8.1/107.2/107.4/108.1/106.3/107.4/107.0/107.4/10
Area size class 150–250 km50–100 km250+ km250+ km20–50 km100–150 km50–100 km20 km or less
Ability profile advancedadvancedintermediateadvancedintermediateadvancedadvancedadvanced
Price class highavghighhighavghighavgavg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km63 km580 kmclear advantage322 km27 km142 km85 km17 km
Lowest point 1,000 m1,446 m985 m1,562 m1,984 mclear advantage1,472 m1,020 m900 m
Highest point 3,842 m3,269 m2,254 m3,899 m2,877 m3,573 m1,930 m1,700 m
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage1,823 m1,269 m2,337 m893 m2,101 m910 m800 m
Blue pistes 34%37%53%23%69%22%33%13%
Red pistes 44%48%36%68%20%62%59%88%
Black pistes 22%clear advantage14%10%8%11%16%8%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%65%8%92%99%57%0%–
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%3%0%21%clear advantage9%0%0%–
Piste-mix diversity 97/10091/10085/10074/10075/10084/10080/10054/100
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage61/10058/10051/10056/10068/10025/100–
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage10%6%6%8%2%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 ––––––––
Valley snow versus typical ––––––––
Open slopes versus typical ––––––––
Current snow
Valley snow ––––––––
Mid-mountain snow ––––––––
Mountain snow ––––––––
Fresh snow ––––––––
Snow quality ––––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––––––––
Open lifts ––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km730 pph/kmclear advantage–298 pph/km136 pph/km289 pph/km330 pph/km–
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.50×–0.28×0.20×0.28×0.19×–
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift2.6 km/lift3.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift4.5 km/lift3.6 km/lift4.3 km/lift2.1 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 3°C-1°C3°C0°C-4°C1°C4°C-6°C
Maximum temperature 10°C5°C11°C6°C4°C7°C12°C7°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –familyfamily––familyfamily–
Piste variety slopesslopes–slopes–slopes––
Off-piste offpiste––offpiste––––
Cross-country ––––––––
Lift network –lifts–lifts–lifts––
Mountain restaurants –restaurants–restaurants–restaurants––
Après-ski –––apresski–apresski––
Public transport transit–transittransit––transit–
Best airport transfer 63 min136 min92 min104 min139 min441 min57 min–
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer28 km/h transfer378 km/h transferclear advantage186 km/h transfer12 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer89 km/h transfer–