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.

Selected9 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.

9 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. Font Romeu is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 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. Font Romeu is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 6 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.

AlternativeFont Romeu
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 ago8.4 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 Font Romeu Access +8.8 pts and Terrain fit +4.6 pts
Access +8.8Terrain fit +4.6Snow now -4.1Snow reliability -1.0
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeFont Romeu

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

What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 78 and Font Romeu becomes the leading option.

Lead margin8.4pts

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 frontier3 options

6 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.

Family & valueFont Romeu

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 78 and Font Romeu becomes the leading option.

12 → 78
Why Chamonix leads Font Romeu · 8.4 pts
Access+8.8 pts
Current opportunity-4.1 pts
Terrain+3.5 pts
Scale+3.1 pts
Family & value-2.1 pts
Snow-1.0 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..

Font Romeu

#2 · Font Romeu · France

Decision66/100
Fit68/100
Now60/100
Quality5.5/10
Now60220 cm upperReliability6666/100Terrain6868/100
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.

Fit67.586% weight Now59.614% weight Decision66.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow66/100 · 37% evidence 18.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain60/100 · 52% evidence 14.9 / 25.0 pts
Scale67/100 · 100% evidence 12.1 / 18.2 pts
Lift system67/100 · 68% evidence 10.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value87/100 · 41% evidence 11.9 / 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.

Mountain snow220 cm 31.4 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow150 cm 19.0 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow192 cm 9.1 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 73/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area58 km · 496 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 mCalendar contextMountain snow is 223% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 68/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 66/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · 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

#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.

Pamporovo

#5 · Pamporovo · Bulgaria

Decision61/100
Fit61/100
Now0/100
Quality5.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6060/100Terrain6262/100
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.

Fit61.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision61.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow60/100 · 37% evidence 16.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain55/100 · 52% evidence 13.6 / 25.0 pts
Scale56/100 · 100% evidence 10.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system59/100 · 68% evidence 9.4 / 15.9 pts
Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 11.7 / 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 68/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area30 km · 453 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 60/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Across the commonly available decision dimensions, Font Romeu is at least as strong and meaningfully better on one or more dimensions.

Menthieres

#6 · Menthieres · Switzerland

Decision43/100
Fit43/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2626/100Terrain4949/100
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.

Fit42.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision42.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow26/100 · 37% evidence 7.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain35/100 · 44% evidence 8.7 / 25.0 pts
Scale16/100 · 100% evidence 3.0 / 18.2 pts
Lift system82/100 · 68% evidence 13.0 / 15.9 pts
Family & value79/100 · 41% evidence 10.8 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 49%

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 · 55/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area1 km · 111 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 49/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 26/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Belchen Schwarzwald

#7 · Schwarzwaldregion Belchen Munstertal Schwarzwald · Germany

Decision40/100
Fit40/100
Now0/100
Quality6.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3636/100Terrain4141/100
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.

Fit39.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision39.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow36/100 · 37% evidence 9.8 / 27.3 pts
Terrain41/100 · 52% evidence 10.3 / 25.0 pts
Scale41/100 · 100% evidence 7.5 / 18.2 pts
Lift system4/100 · 8% evidence 0.7 / 15.9 pts
Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 11.7 / 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 49/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area8 km · 263 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 41/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 36/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Einsiedeln

#8 · Einsiedeln · Switzerland

Decision37/100
Fit40/100
Now7/100
Quality2.5/10
Now730 cm upperReliability2828/100Terrain3636/100Access8242 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.

Fit39.592% weight Now6.58% weight Decision36.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow28/100 · 37% evidence 6.7 / 24.0 pts
Terrain9/100 · 39% evidence 1.9 / 22.0 pts
Scale25/100 · 85% evidence 4.0 / 16.0 pts
Lift system57/100 · 8% evidence 7.9 / 14.0 pts
Access82/100 · 68% evidence 9.8 / 12.0 pts
Family & value77/100 · 31% evidence 9.2 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 44%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow30 cm 6.5 / 65.2 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 34.8 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 46%

Destination typeBalanced all-rounderBest useFamily trips · 53/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area7 km · 100 m verticalBest transfer42 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 36/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 28/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Bad Tolz

#9 · Blomberg · Germany

Decision18/100
Fit18/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2626/100Terrain1515/100
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.

Fit18.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision18.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow26/100 · 37% evidence 7.1 / 27.3 pts
Terrain23/100 · 31% evidence 5.7 / 25.0 pts
Scale26/100 · 100% evidence 4.7 / 18.2 pts
Lift system4/100 · 8% evidence 0.7 / 15.9 pts
Family & value0/100 · 18% evidence 0.0 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 35%

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 useSnow-first trips · 21/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area0 km · 533 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 15/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 26/100 — 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 ValleyFont RomeuFont RomeuBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalPamporovoPamporovoMenthieresMenthieresBelchen SchwarzwaldSchwarzwaldregion Belchen Munstertal SchwarzwaldEinsiedelnEinsiedelnBad TolzBlomberg
Assessment
Decision score 75/100clear advantage66/10064/10064/10061/10043/10040/10037/10018/100
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage68/10075/10064/10061/10043/10040/10040/10018/100
Current opportunity 29/10060/100clear advantage22/1000/1000/1000/1000/1007/1000/100
Overall quality 6.0/105.5/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/105.0/10–6.2/102.5/10–
Recommendation confidence MediumLowMediumMediumLowLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10058/10076/10078/10063/10024/10039/10029/10025/100
Typical daytime high 3°C5°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C5°C4°C1°C3°C4°C
Typical snow/freezing level –––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-3°C-7°C-6°C-2°C-2°C-5°C-2°C-2°C
Rating 8.1/106.7/108.1/107.4/106.6/104.4/106.9/104.4/10–
Area size class 150–250 km50–100 km250+ km100–150 km20–50 km20 km or less20 km or less20 km or less50km or less
Ability profile advancedintermediateadvancedadvancedintermediatenovicenovicenovicenovice
Price class highavghighhighlow–avgavgavg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km58 km322 kmclear advantage142 km30 km1 km8 km7 km0 km
Lowest point 1,000 m1,717 mclear advantage1,562 m1,472 m1,473 m1,070 m1,100 m1,100 m703 m
Highest point 3,842 m2,213 m3,899 m3,573 m1,926 m1,181 m1,363 m1,200 m1,236 m
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage496 m2,337 m2,101 m453 m111 m263 m100 m533 m
Blue pistes 34%52%23%22%60%71%75%100%0%
Red pistes 44%33%68%62%26%29%25%0%0%
Black pistes 22%clear advantage16%8%16%15%0%0%0%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%–92%clear advantage57%–––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%–21%clear advantage0%–––––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10091/10074/10084/10085/10086/10081/100––
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage–51/10068/100–––––
Very/extremely steep terrain 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+133% vs average · 100th percentileWell above typical+223% vs average · 100th percentileWell below typical-40% vs average · 4th percentile––––––
Valley snow versus typical –Well above typical+299% vs average · 100th percentileBelow typical-40% vs average · 58th percentile––––––
Open slopes versus typical ––Close to typical-21% vs average · 46th percentile––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm150 cmclear advantage19 cm––––––
Mid-mountain snow 99 cm192 cmclear advantage53 cm––––––
Mountain snow 145 cm220 cmclear advantage75 cm––––30 cm–
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality ––9.6/10––––––
Snow alert 0 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/km605 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km471 pph/km2,157 pph/kmclear advantage–––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.29×0.28×0.28×0.46×0.50×–––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift2.3 km/lift0.5 km/lift8.0 km/lift1.0 km/lift0.0 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 4°C4°C1°C1°C5°C2°C0°C5°C4°C
Maximum temperature 11°C15°C9°C6°C10°C8°C7°C10°C12°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –––family–––––
Piste variety slopes–slopesslopes–––––
Off-piste offpiste–offpiste––––––
Cross-country –––––––––
Lift network ––liftslifts–––––
Mountain restaurants ––restaurantsrestaurants–––––
Après-ski ––apresskiapresski–––––
Public transport transit–transit––––transit–
Best airport transfer 63 min–104 min441 min–––42 minclear advantage–
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer–186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–––10 km/h transfer–