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.

Selected5 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Gudauri is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 90/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Narrow lead

Gudauri

82/100

Why

Gudauri is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 90/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 11 h ago

Strong overall decision score (82/100).

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

AlternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

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

Gudauri

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choiceNarrow lead

Leads on strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 90/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Gudauri leads Chamonix Terrain fit +10.4 pts and Snow reliability +9.8 pts

Terrain fit +10.4Snow reliability +9.8Access -8.8Snow now -4.0

Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultIncrease scale weight from 16 to 61 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin7.4pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.

Evidence confidence49%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier3 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.

ScaleChamonix

Increase scale weight from 16 to 61 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

16 → 61

Family & valueChamonix

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 57 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 57

Why Gudauri leads Chamonix · 7.4 pts

Snow+9.8 pts

Access-8.8 pts

Terrain+6.4 pts

Lift system+4.6 pts

Current opportunity-4.0 pts

Scale-0.3 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.

Gudauri

#1 · Gudauri · Georgia

Decision82/100

Fit82/100

Now0/100

Quality8.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability9090/100Terrain7979/100

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.

Fit82.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision82.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow90/100 · 37% evidence 24.4 / 27.3 pts

Terrain91/100 · 52% evidence 22.8 / 25.0 pts

Scale73/100 · 100% evidence 13.2 / 18.2 pts

Lift system87/100 · 8% evidence 13.8 / 15.9 pts

Family & value58/100 · 41% evidence 7.9 / 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 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 typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useSnow-first trips · 85/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area35 km · 1,283 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Exceptional reliability match · 90/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Scale trails the selected-set median by 24 points.

Chamonix

#2 · 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 Decision74.7/100

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 146% 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

Now23/100

Quality9.2/10

Now2380 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 Now22.622% 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 snow80 cm 8.0 / 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 snow56 cm 1.9 / 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 36% 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.

Laterns

#5 · Laterns · Austria

Decision55/100

Fit55/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4343/100Terrain5454/100Access8360 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.

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.

Snow43/100 · 73% evidence 10.3 / 24.0 pts

Terrain57/100 · 72% evidence 12.5 / 22.0 pts

Scale69/100 · 100% evidence 11.1 / 16.0 pts

Lift system21/100 · 68% evidence 3.0 / 14.0 pts

Access83/100 · 68% evidence 10.0 / 12.0 pts

Family & value69/100 · 41% evidence 8.3 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 72%

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 · 58/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area27 km · 745 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer60 minCurrent 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..
Mixed reliability match · 43/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

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.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	GudauriGudauri	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal	LaternsLaterns
Assessment
Decision score	82/100clear advantage	75/100	64/100	64/100	55/100
Structural Fit	82/100	82/100	75/100	64/100	55/100
Current opportunity	0/100	29/100clear advantage	23/100	0/100	0/100
Overall quality	8.5/10	6.0/10	9.2/10clear advantage	8.7/10	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	78/100	68/100	76/100	78/100	54/100
Typical daytime high	-1°C	3°C	-2°C	1°C	3°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-9°C	-4°C	-7°C	-6°C	-4°C
Rating	7.9/10	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.4/10	6.7/10
Area size class	20–50 km	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km	20–50 km
Ability profile	expert	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced
Price class	avg	high	high	high	low
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	35 km	175 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km	27 km
Lowest point	1,993 mclear advantage	1,000 m	1,562 m	1,472 m	1,040 m
Highest point	3,276 m	3,842 m	3,899 m	3,573 m	1,785 m
Vertical range	1,283 m	2,842 mclear advantage	2,337 m	2,101 m	745 m
Blue pistes	13%	34%	23%	22%	30%
Red pistes	56%	44%	68%	62%	56%
Black pistes	31%clear advantage	22%	8%	16%	15%
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	55%	92%clear advantage	57%	0%
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	0%
Piste-mix diversity	87/100	97/100clear advantage	74/100	84/100	88/100
Slope-angle diversity	–	86/100clear advantage	51/100	68/100	26/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	21%clear advantage	6%	2%	1%
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+146% vs average · 100th percentile	Well below typical-36% vs average · 4th percentile	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	Below typical-40% vs average · 58th percentile	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	Close to typical-20% vs average · 50th percentile	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	30 cm	19 cm	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	99 cmclear advantage	56 cm	–	–
Mountain snow	–	145 cmclear advantage	80 cm	–	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Snow quality	–	–	9.6/10	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	7%	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	556 pph/kmclear advantage	298 pph/km	289 pph/km	301 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	–	0.48×clear advantage	0.28×	0.28×	0.21×
Terrain per lift	2.0 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	5.4 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	-5°C	5°C	-7°C	2°C	6°C
Maximum temperature	2°C	12°C	-4°C	7°C	11°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–	–	family	family
Piste variety	–	slopes	slopes	slopes	–
Off-piste	–	offpiste	offpiste	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	lifts	lifts	lifts
Mountain restaurants	–	–	restaurants	restaurants	–
Après-ski	–	–	apresski	apresski	–
Public transport	–	transit	transit	–	transit
Best airport transfer	–	63 min	104 min	441 min	60 min
Skiing per transfer hour	–	166 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer	27 km/h transfer

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Gudauri

Gudauri

Resort overview

Gudauri

Chamonix

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Laterns

Detailed comparison