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.

Selected6 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Montriond narrowly leads because of 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. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Montriond

77/100

Why

Montriond narrowly leads because of 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. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 14 h ago

Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (77/100).

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

AlternativeChamonix

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

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

Montriond

Large-domain explorerEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. 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—but the result is close.

Why Montriond leads Chamonix Terrain fit +6.9 pts and Access +0.3 pts

Terrain fit +6.9Snow now -3.9Snow reliability -0.7Access +0.3

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 5 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin2.6pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 2–3.

Evidence confidence69%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier3 options

3 options are 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.

Lift systemChamonix

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 5 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

14 → 5

SnowChamonix

Increase snow weight from 24 to 61 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

24 → 61

TerrainChamonix

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 61 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

22 → 61

Why Montriond leads Chamonix · 2.6 pts

Lift system+4.5 pts

Current opportunity-3.9 pts

Family & value+2.4 pts

Snow-0.7 pts

Terrain-0.5 pts

Scale+0.5 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.

Montriond

#1 · Portes du Soleil · France

Decision77/100

Fit77/100

Now0/100

Quality6.3/10

Now00 cm freshReliability5858/100Terrain8585/100Access7684 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.

Fit77.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision77.2/100

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

Access76/100 · 68% evidence 9.1 / 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 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 useFamily trips · 80/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area580 km · 1,269 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m8%Best transfer84 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..

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision75/100

Fit82/100

Now29/100

Quality6.0/10

Now29142 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 Now28.714% weight Decision74.6/100

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 snow142 cm 20.3 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow97 cm 4.6 / 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 109% 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

Now25/100

Quality9.2/10

Now25100 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 Now25.022% weight Decision64.4/100

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.

Mountain snow100 cm 10.0 / 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 snow68 cm 2.3 / 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 20% 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.

Kandersteg

#5 · Oeschinensee Kandersteg · Switzerland

Decision54/100

Fit54/100

Now0/100

Quality8.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4848/100Terrain5151/100Access8055 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.

Fit54.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision54.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow48/100 · 37% evidence 11.6 / 24.0 pts

Terrain58/100 · 52% evidence 12.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale45/100 · 100% evidence 7.2 / 16.0 pts

Lift system32/100 · 68% evidence 4.5 / 14.0 pts

Access80/100 · 68% evidence 9.6 / 12.0 pts

Family & value71/100 · 41% evidence 8.5 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 59%

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 reliabilityMarginalSki area13 km · 530 m verticalBest transfer55 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 51/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 48/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Suhl

#6 · Suhl · Germany

Decision14/100

Fit14/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability1818/100Terrain1212/100

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.

Fit13.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision13.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow18/100 · 37% evidence 4.8 / 27.3 pts

Terrain12/100 · 31% evidence 2.9 / 25.0 pts

Scale8/100 · 85% evidence 1.4 / 18.2 pts

Lift system13/100 · 8% evidence 2.1 / 15.9 pts

Family & value19/100 · 31% evidence 2.5 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 34%

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 useFamily trips · 15/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area0 km · 270 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 12/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 18/100 — 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.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	MontriondPortes du Soleil	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal	KanderstegOeschinensee Kandersteg	SuhlSuhl
Assessment
Decision score	77/100	75/100	64/100	64/100	54/100	14/100
Structural Fit	77/100	82/100clear advantage	75/100	64/100	54/100	14/100
Current opportunity	0/100	29/100	25/100	0/100	0/100	0/100
Overall quality	6.3/10	6.0/10	9.2/10clear advantage	8.7/10	8.0/10	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	71/100	68/100	76/100	78/100	49/100	34/100
Typical daytime high	3°C	3°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C	1°C	3°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-3°C	-4°C	-7°C	-6°C	-6°C	-3°C
Rating	7.4/10	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.4/10	6.6/10	4.4/10
Area size class	250+ km	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km	20 km or less	20km or less
Ability profile	intermediate	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	–
Price class	high	high	high	high	high	low
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	580 kmclear advantage	175 km	322 km	142 km	13 km	0 km
Lowest point	985 m	1,000 m	1,562 m	1,472 m	1,200 m	430 m
Highest point	2,254 m	3,842 m	3,899 m	3,573 m	1,730 m	700 m
Vertical range	1,269 m	2,842 mclear advantage	2,337 m	2,101 m	530 m	270 m
Blue pistes	53%	34%	23%	22%	32%	0%
Red pistes	36%	44%	68%	62%	68%	0%
Black pistes	10%	22%clear advantage	8%	16%	0%	0%
Terrain above 2,000 m	8%	55%	92%clear advantage	57%	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	85/100	97/100	74/100	84/100	90/100	–
Slope-angle diversity	58/100	86/100clear advantage	51/100	68/100	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	6%	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 above typical+109% vs average · 92th percentile	Below typical-20% vs average · 23th percentile	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	Below typical-41% vs average · 57th percentile	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	Close to typical-21% vs average · 45th percentile	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	30 cm	19 cm	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	97 cmclear advantage	68 cm	–	–	–
Mountain snow	–	142 cmclear advantage	100 cm	–	–	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	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
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	7%	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	556 pph/kmclear advantage	298 pph/km	289 pph/km	400 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	–	0.48×clear advantage	0.28×	0.28×	0.22×	–
Terrain per lift	3.5 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	2.2 km/lift	0.0 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	3°C	2°C	-8°C	1°C	3°C	5°C
Maximum temperature	9°C	9°C	-5°C	7°C	11°C	9°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–	–	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	transit	–	transit	–
Best airport transfer	84 min	63 min	104 min	441 min	55 min	–
Skiing per transfer hour	414 km/h transferclear advantage	166 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer	14 km/h transfer	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Montriond

Montriond

Resort overview

Montriond

Chamonix

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Kandersteg

Suhl

Detailed comparison