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.

Selected9 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Kaprun narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Kaprun

72/100

Why

Kaprun narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options have limited evidence coverage.

Mixed evidenceUpdated 10 h ago

Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).

AlternativeChamonix

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

Would change ifA material forecast shift or a different priority profile could change the ranking.

Open webcams Show on map Inspect forecast

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Kaprun

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Kaprun leads Chamonix Snow reliability +2.7 pts and Snow now +0.7 pts

Snow reliability +2.7Terrain fit -1.5Access -0.9Snow now +0.7

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. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 8 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.2pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence73%

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.

Lift systemBreuil Cervinia

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 8 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

14 → 8

SnowChamonix

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

24 → 14

TerrainChamonix

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 32 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

22 → 32

AccessChamonix

Increase access weight from 12 to 30 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 30

Why Kaprun leads Chamonix · 1.2 pts

Terrain-2.8 pts

Snow+2.7 pts

Lift system+0.9 pts

Access-0.9 pts

Current opportunity+0.7 pts

Family & value+0.6 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.

Kaprun

#1 · Zell am See Kaprun · Austria

Decision72/100

Fit82/100

Now9/100

Quality5.9/10

Now955 cm upperReliability8383/100Terrain8383/100Access7782 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.

Fit82.486% weight Now9.414% weight Decision72.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow83/100 · 73% evidence 20.0 / 24.0 pts

Terrain72/100 · 80% evidence 15.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale97/100 · 85% evidence 15.5 / 16.0 pts

Lift system83/100 · 68% evidence 11.7 / 14.0 pts

Access77/100 · 68% evidence 9.2 / 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.

Mountain snow55 cm 7.9 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow33 cm 1.6 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 83/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area141 km · 2,269 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m90%Best transfer82 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 24% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 83/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Strong reliability match · 83/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision71/100

Fit82/100

Now4/100

Quality6.0/10

Now425 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 Now4.314% weight Decision71.2/100

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 snow25 cm 3.6 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow15 cm 0.7 / 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 63% below 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

Decision71/100

Fit75/100

Now28/100

Quality9.2/10

Now2863 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.

Fit75.490% weight Now28.410% weight Decision70.5/100

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 snow63 cm 11.3 / 53.6 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 28.6 pts

Snow quality9.6/10 17.1 / 17.9 pts

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 56%

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 50% 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.

Damuls

#5 · Damuls Mellau Faschina · Austria

Decision62/100

Fit68/100

Now20/100

Quality8.5/10

Now2080 cm upperReliability5555/100Terrain7373/100Access7085 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.

Fit68.486% weight Now19.614% weight Decision61.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow55/100 · 73% evidence 13.1 / 24.0 pts

Terrain69/100 · 80% evidence 15.2 / 22.0 pts

Scale91/100 · 100% evidence 14.6 / 16.0 pts

Lift system59/100 · 68% evidence 8.3 / 14.0 pts

Access70/100 · 68% evidence 8.4 / 12.0 pts

Family & value74/100 · 41% evidence 8.9 / 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.

Mountain snow80 cm 11.4 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow40 cm 5.1 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow64 cm 3.0 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 70/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area76 km · 1,340 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m1%Best transfer85 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 mCalendar contextMountain snow is 171% above 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..
Solid reliability match · 55/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow trails the selected-set median by 19 points.

Urnasch

#6 · · Switzerland

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.

Eppendorf

#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 dataNo current update

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.

Luthern

#8 · · Switzerland

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.

Angon

#9 · · France

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.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	KaprunZell am See Kaprun	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal	DamulsDamuls Mellau Faschina	UrnaschSwitzerland	EppendorfGermany	LuthernSwitzerland	AngonFrance
Assessment
Decision score	72/100	71/100	71/100	64/100	62/100	–	–	–	–
Structural Fit	82/100	82/100	75/100	64/100	68/100	–	–	–	–
Current opportunity	9/100	4/100	28/100clear advantage	0/100	20/100	–	–	–	–
Overall quality	5.9/10	6.0/10	9.2/10clear advantage	8.7/10	8.5/10	–	–	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	47/100	68/100	76/100	78/100	79/100	–	–	–	–
Typical daytime high	6°C	3°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C	3°C	–	–	–	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-1°C	-4°C	-7°C	-6°C	-4°C	–	–	–	–
Rating	7.2/10	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.4/10	7.0/10	–	–	–	–
Area size class	100–150 km	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km	50–100 km	–	–	–	–
Ability profile	intermediate	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	–	–	–	–
Price class	avg	high	high	high	avg	–	–	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	141 km	175 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km	76 km	–	–	–	–
Lowest point	760 m	1,000 m	1,562 m	1,472 m	710 m	–	–	–	–
Highest point	3,029 m	3,842 m	3,899 m	3,573 m	2,050 m	–	–	–	–
Vertical range	2,269 m	2,842 mclear advantage	2,337 m	2,101 m	1,340 m	–	–	–	–
Blue pistes	44%	34%	23%	22%	39%	–	–	–	–
Red pistes	36%	44%	68%	62%	58%	–	–	–	–
Black pistes	20%	22%	8%	16%	3%	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	90%	55%	92%	57%	1%	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	1%	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	0%	–	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	96/100	97/100	74/100	84/100	71/100	–	–	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	38/100	86/100clear advantage	51/100	68/100	48/100	–	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	4%	21%clear advantage	6%	2%	6%	–	–	–	–
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	Below typical-24% vs average · 21th percentile	Well below typical-63% vs average · 0th percentile	Well below typical-50% vs average · 4th percentile	–	Well above typical+171% vs average · 100th percentile	–	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	Close to typical0th percentile	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	0 cm	0 cm	–	–	40 cmclear advantage	–	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	33 cm	15 cm	–	–	64 cmclear advantage	–	–	–	–
Mountain snow	55 cm	25 cm	63 cm	–	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	0 cm	–	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	711 pph/kmclear advantage	556 pph/km	298 pph/km	289 pph/km	556 pph/km	–	–	–	–
Lift-system coverage	0.45×	0.48×	0.28×	0.28×	0.26×	–	–	–	–
Terrain per lift	2.7 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	–	–	–	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	1°C	2°C	-1°C	1°C	0°C	2°C	–	4°C	6°C
Maximum temperature	9°C	9°C	3°C	7°C	6°C	6°C	–	8°C	13°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–	–	family	family	–	–	–	–
Piste variety	–	slopes	slopes	slopes	–	–	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	offpiste	offpiste	–	–	–	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift network	lifts	–	lifts	lifts	lifts	–	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	restaurants	–	restaurants	restaurants	restaurants	–	–	–	–
Après-ski	apresski	–	apresski	apresski	–	–	–	–	–
Public transport	transit	transit	transit	–	transit	–	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	82 min	63 min	104 min	441 min	85 min	–	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	103 km/h transfer	166 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer	54 km/h transfer	–	–	–	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Kaprun

Kaprun

Resort overview

Kaprun

Chamonix

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Damuls

Urnasch

Eppendorf

Luthern

Angon

Detailed comparison