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.

Selected10 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.

10 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. Meransen is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

Chamonix

75/100
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. Meransen is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.
Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 145 cm.

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeMeransen
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.
Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago7.3 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 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 Meransen Snow now +3.9 pts and Terrain fit +2.6 pts
Snow now +3.9Terrain fit +2.6Snow reliability +0.5Access +0.2
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeMeransen

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

What could change the resultIncrease snow weight from 24 to 83 and Schnalstal becomes the leading option.

Lead margin7.3pts

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

4 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.

SnowSchnalstal

Increase snow weight from 24 to 83 and Schnalstal becomes the leading option.

24 → 83
Family & valueOberstaufen

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 84 and Oberstaufen becomes the leading option.

12 → 84
AccessOberstaufen

Increase access weight from 12 to 89 and Oberstaufen becomes the leading option.

12 → 89
Why Chamonix leads Meransen · 7.3 pts
Current opportunity+3.9 pts
Lift system+1.8 pts
Terrain+1.2 pts
Snow+0.5 pts
Family & value-0.4 pts
Access+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

Decision75/100
Fit82/100
Now29/100
Quality6.0/10
Now29145 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 Now29.214% weight Decision74.8/100
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 snow145 cm 20.7 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow99 cm 4.7 / 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 133% 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..

Meransen

#2 · Gitschberg Jochtal · Italy

Decision68/100
Fit68/100
Now0/100
Quality4.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5959/100Terrain7070/100Access7275 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.

Fit67.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision67.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow59/100 · 73% evidence 14.1 / 24.0 pts
Terrain69/100 · 80% evidence 15.2 / 22.0 pts
Scale85/100 · 85% evidence 13.6 / 16.0 pts
Lift system54/100 · 68% evidence 7.5 / 14.0 pts
Access72/100 · 68% evidence 8.6 / 12.0 pts
Family & value71/100 · 41% evidence 8.6 / 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 · 69/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area55 km · 1,203 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m30%Best transfer75 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Solid reliability match · 59/100 — 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.

Oberstaufen

#3 · Oberstaufen · Germany

Decision66/100
Fit66/100
Now0/100
Quality4.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3939/100Terrain7171/100Access8953 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.

Fit65.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision65.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow39/100 · 73% evidence 9.4 / 24.0 pts
Terrain60/100 · 80% evidence 13.1 / 22.0 pts
Scale75/100 · 85% evidence 12.0 / 16.0 pts
Lift system73/100 · 68% evidence 10.3 / 14.0 pts
Access89/100 · 68% evidence 10.7 / 12.0 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 10.2 / 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 typeEfficient short-break baseBest useFamily trips · 71/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area37 km · 963 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer53 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 39/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Schnalstal

#4 · Schnalstaler Gletscher · Italy

Decision65/100
Fit75/100
Now12/100
Quality9.0/10
Now126 cm upperReliability9696/100Terrain7373/100Access42133 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.

Fit74.984% weight Now12.316% weight Decision64.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow96/100 · 37% evidence 23.0 / 24.0 pts
Terrain91/100 · 52% evidence 20.1 / 22.0 pts
Scale81/100 · 85% evidence 13.0 / 16.0 pts
Lift system40/100 · 68% evidence 5.6 / 14.0 pts
Access42/100 · 68% evidence 5.0 / 12.0 pts
Family & value67/100 · 41% evidence 8.1 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 57%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow6 cm 0.8 / 37.5 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 20.0 pts
Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 20.0 pts
Snow quality9.1/10 11.4 / 12.5 pts
Mid-mountain snow4 cm 0.2 / 10.0 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 80%

Destination typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useSnow-first trips · 82/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area42 km · 1,201 m verticalBest transfer133 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 87% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 73/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Exceptional reliability match · 96/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Breuil Cervinia

#5 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision64/100
Fit75/100
Now22/100
Quality9.2/10
Now2275 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.

Fit75.479% weight Now22.021% weight Decision63.9/100
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 snow75 cm 7.5 / 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 snow53 cm 1.8 / 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 40% 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

#6 · 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.

Gossensass

#7 · Rosskopf Sterzing · Italy

Decision55/100
Fit55/100
Now0/100
Quality3.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5757/100Terrain5454/100
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.

Fit55.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision55.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow57/100 · 37% evidence 15.6 / 27.3 pts
Terrain62/100 · 52% evidence 15.5 / 25.0 pts
Scale62/100 · 100% evidence 11.3 / 18.2 pts
Lift system24/100 · 68% evidence 3.9 / 15.9 pts
Family & value66/100 · 41% evidence 8.9 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 51%

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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useAdvanced skiing · 57/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area20 km · 1,172 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 57/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Hollenstein an der Ybbs

#8 · Konigsberg Hollenstein/Ybbs Lower Austria · Austria

Decision41/100
Fit41/100
Now0/100
Quality3.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3333/100Terrain4747/100Access29138 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.

Fit41.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision41.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow33/100 · 73% evidence 7.8 / 24.0 pts
Terrain41/100 · 80% evidence 9.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale42/100 · 100% evidence 6.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system30/100 · 68% evidence 4.1 / 14.0 pts
Access29/100 · 68% evidence 3.5 / 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 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 · 48/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area14 km · 357 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer138 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 47/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 33/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Bedollo

#9 · Bedollo · Italy

Decision8/100
Fit8/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2525/100Terrain00/100
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.

Fit8.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision8.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow25/100 · 36% evidence 8.1 / 32.4 pts
Terrain0/100 · 15% evidence 0.0 / 29.7 pts
Scale1/100 · 58% evidence 0.1 / 21.6 pts
Family & value0/100 · 18% evidence 0.0 / 16.2 pts
AccessNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded

Data coverage: 23%

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 typeSnow-led destinationSnow reliabilityLowSki area0 km · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 0/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 25/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Maccagno

#10 · · Italy

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 ValleyMeransenGitschberg JochtalOberstaufenOberstaufenSchnalstalSchnalstaler GletscherBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalGossensassRosskopf SterzingHollenstein an der YbbsKonigsberg Hollenstein/Ybbs Lower AustriaBedolloBedolloMaccagnoItaly
Assessment
Decision score 75/100clear advantage68/10066/10065/10064/10064/10055/10041/1008/100–
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage68/10066/10075/10075/10064/10055/10041/1008/100–
Current opportunity 29/100clear advantage0/1000/10012/10022/1000/1000/1000/1000/100–
Overall quality 6.0/104.0/104.5/109.0/109.2/108.7/103.5/103.5/10––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowMediumLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10037/10041/10095/100clear advantage76/10078/10048/10043/10031/100–
Typical daytime high 3°C3°C4°C-2°C-2°C1°C4°C4°C4°C–
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-5°C-3°C-7°C-7°C-6°C-4°C-3°C-2°C–
Rating 8.1/106.1/106.6/107.1/108.1/107.4/106.8/105.2/10––
Area size class 150–250 km50–100 km20–50 km20–50 km250+ km100–150 km20 km or less20 km or less20km or less–
Ability profile advancedadvancedintermediateexpertadvancedadvancedadvancedintermediate––
Price class highlowlowlowhighhighavgavg––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km55 km37 km42 km322 kmclear advantage142 km20 km14 km0 km–
Lowest point 1,000 m1,307 m745 m2,011 mclear advantage1,562 m1,472 m948 m700 m––
Highest point 3,842 m2,510 m1,708 m3,212 m3,899 m3,573 m2,120 m1,057 m1,050 m–
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage1,203 m963 m1,201 m2,337 m2,101 m1,172 m357 m––
Blue pistes 34%34%47%24%23%22%30%50%0%–
Red pistes 44%49%34%43%68%62%65%36%0%–
Black pistes 22%17%20%33%clear advantage8%16%5%14%0%–
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%30%0%–92%clear advantage57%–0%––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%0%–21%clear advantage0%–0%––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10092/10095/10097/10074/10084/10072/10090/100––
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage49/10040/100–51/10068/100–19/100––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage2%1%–6%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+133% vs average · 100th percentile––Well below typical-87% vs average · 0th percentileWell below typical-40% vs average · 4th percentile–––––
Valley snow versus typical –––Close to typical-100% vs average · 0th percentileBelow typical-40% vs average · 58th percentile–––––
Open slopes versus typical ––––Close to typical-21% vs average · 46th percentile–––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm––0 cm19 cm–––––
Mid-mountain snow 99 cmclear advantage––4 cm53 cm–––––
Mountain snow 145 cmclear advantage––6 cm75 cm–––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–
Snow quality –––9.1/109.6/10–––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––––7%–––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km442 pph/km730 pph/kmclear advantage353 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km315 pph/km373 pph/km––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.31×0.41×0.31×0.28×0.28×0.25×0.21×––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift3.9 km/lift1.4 km/lift3.8 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift6.7 km/lift2.3 km/lift––
Weather
Minimum temperature 4°C1°C6°C-3°C1°C1°C3°C5°C-3°C10°C
Maximum temperature 11°C12°C11°C4°C9°C6°C14°C9°C2°C18°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –familyfamily––family––––
Piste variety slopes–––slopesslopes––––
Off-piste offpiste–––offpiste–––––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network –lifts––liftslifts––––
Mountain restaurants –restaurants–restaurantsrestaurantsrestaurants––––
Après-ski ––––apresskiapresski––––
Public transport transittransittransit–transit–transit–––
Best airport transfer 63 min75 min53 min133 min104 min441 min–138 min––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer44 km/h transfer41 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–6 km/h transfer––