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.

Selected8 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.

8 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 narrowly leads 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. Les Deux Alpes is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Chamonix

75/100
Why
  1. Chamonix narrowly leads 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. Les Deux Alpes is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 24 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 145 cm.
AlternativeLes Deux Alpes
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Les Deux Alpes 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.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 24 h ago1.1 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 choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Les Deux Alpes. 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—but the result is close.

Why Chamonix leads Les Deux Alpes Terrain fit +8.5 pts and Access +0.8 pts
Terrain fit +8.5Snow reliability -4.1Snow now -4.0Access +0.8
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeLes Deux Alpes

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 11 and Les Deux Alpes becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.1pts

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.

Lift systemLes Deux Alpes

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 11 and Les Deux Alpes becomes the leading option.

14 → 11
SnowLes Deux Alpes

Increase snow weight from 24 to 29 and Les Deux Alpes becomes the leading option.

24 → 29
Family & valueLes Deux Alpes

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 20 and Les Deux Alpes becomes the leading option.

12 → 20
TerrainLes Deux Alpes

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 3 and Les Deux Alpes becomes the leading option.

22 → 3
Why Chamonix leads Les Deux Alpes · 1.1 pts
Lift system+6.2 pts
Snow-4.1 pts
Current opportunity-4.0 pts
Terrain+2.1 pts
Scale+1.2 pts
Family & value-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..

Les Deux Alpes

#2 · Les 2 Alpes · France

Decision74/100
Fit76/100
Now58/100
Quality9.5/10
Now58340 cm upperReliability9090/100Terrain7171/100Access7878 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.

Fit76.186% weight Now58.414% weight Decision73.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow90/100 · 73% evidence 21.7 / 24.0 pts
Terrain75/100 · 80% evidence 16.6 / 22.0 pts
Scale90/100 · 100% evidence 14.3 / 16.0 pts
Lift system25/100 · 68% evidence 3.5 / 14.0 pts
Access78/100 · 68% evidence 9.3 / 12.0 pts
Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 10.7 / 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 snow340 cm 42.9 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow40 cm 5.1 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow220 cm 10.5 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useSnow-first trips · 80/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area220 km · 2,243 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m63%Best transfer78 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 920% above 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 · 90/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

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.

Fit75.478% weight Now22.022% 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.

Les Rousses

#5 · Les Rousses · France

Decision63/100
Fit63/100
Now0/100
Quality4.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4141/100Terrain6767/100Access8856 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.

Fit62.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision62.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow41/100 · 73% evidence 9.8 / 24.0 pts
Terrain41/100 · 80% evidence 9.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale67/100 · 85% evidence 10.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system95/100 · 8% evidence 13.3 / 14.0 pts
Access88/100 · 68% evidence 10.6 / 12.0 pts
Family & value79/100 · 41% evidence 9.5 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 63%

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 useShort breaks · 72/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area39 km · 560 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer56 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 67/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 41/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Emmetten am Vierwaldstattersee

#6 · Klewenalp Stockhutte · Switzerland

Decision61/100
Fit61/100
Now0/100
Quality4.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5454/100Terrain6060/100Access8463 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.

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.

Snow54/100 · 37% evidence 13.1 / 24.0 pts
Terrain58/100 · 52% evidence 12.7 / 22.0 pts
Scale67/100 · 100% evidence 10.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system40/100 · 68% evidence 5.6 / 14.0 pts
Access84/100 · 68% evidence 10.1 / 12.0 pts
Family & value78/100 · 41% evidence 9.3 / 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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useFamily trips · 65/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area40 km · 739 m verticalBest transfer63 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 60/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 54/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Aosta

#7 · Pila · Italy

Decision60/100
Fit60/100
Now0/100
Quality6.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7070/100Terrain6363/100Access26153 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.

Fit60.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision60.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow70/100 · 73% evidence 16.7 / 24.0 pts
Terrain67/100 · 80% evidence 14.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale80/100 · 100% evidence 12.8 / 16.0 pts
Lift system45/100 · 68% evidence 6.3 / 14.0 pts
Access26/100 · 68% evidence 3.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value54/100 · 41% evidence 6.5 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 64/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area70 km · 1,200 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m73%Best transfer153 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 70/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Montreux

#8 · Montreux · Switzerland

Decision52/100
Fit52/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4848/100Terrain5050/100Access7762 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.

Fit52.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision52.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow48/100 · 72% evidence 11.4 / 24.0 pts
Terrain47/100 · 43% evidence 10.3 / 22.0 pts
Scale51/100 · 58% evidence 8.1 / 16.0 pts
Lift system80/100 · 8% evidence 11.2 / 14.0 pts
Access77/100 · 68% evidence 9.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value19/100 · 31% evidence 2.3 / 12.0 pts

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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useShort breaks · 60/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area15 km · – verticalTerrain >2,000 m2%Best transfer62 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 50/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 48/100 — 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.

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible
AttributeChamonixChamonix ValleyLes Deux AlpesLes 2 AlpesBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalLes RoussesLes RoussesEmmetten am VierwaldstatterseeKlewenalp StockhutteAostaPilaMontreuxMontreux
Assessment
Decision score 75/10074/10064/10064/10063/10061/10060/10052/100
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage76/10075/10064/10063/10061/10060/10052/100
Current opportunity 29/10058/100clear advantage22/1000/1000/1000/1000/1000/100
Overall quality 6.0/109.5/10clear advantage9.2/108.7/104.0/104.2/106.2/10–
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10079/10076/10078/10048/10050/10058/10054/100
Typical daytime high 3°C0°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C3°C6°C3°C5°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-6°C-7°C-6°C-3°C-1°C-3°C-3°C
Rating 8.1/108.0/108.1/107.4/106.6/106.7/107.3/104.6/10
Area size class 150–250 km150–250 km250+ km100–150 km20–50 km20–50 km50–100 km20 km or less
Ability profile advancedintermediateadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvanced
Price class highavghighhighlowhighavgavg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km220 km322 kmclear advantage142 km39 km40 km70 km15 km
Lowest point 1,000 m1,280 m1,562 m1,472 m1,120 m1,199 m1,540 m–
Highest point 3,842 m3,523 m3,899 m3,573 m1,680 m1,938 m2,740 m1,738 m
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,243 m2,337 m2,101 m560 m739 m1,200 m–
Blue pistes 34%65%23%22%44%38%16%0%
Red pistes 44%18%68%62%50%63%73%100%
Black pistes 22%clear advantage17%8%16%6%0%11%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%63%92%clear advantage57%0%–73%2%
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%13%21%clear advantage0%0%–0%0%
Piste-mix diversity 97/10081/10074/10084/10080/10095/10070/100–
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage56/10051/10068/10023/100–49/10038/100
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage5%6%2%0%–5%4%
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+920% vs average · 100th percentileWell below typical-40% vs average · 4th percentile–––––
Valley snow versus typical ––Below typical-40% vs average · 58th percentile–––––
Open slopes versus typical ––Close to typical-21% vs average · 46th percentile–––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm40 cm19 cm–––––
Mid-mountain snow 99 cm220 cmclear advantage53 cm–––––
Mountain snow 145 cm340 cmclear advantage75 cm–––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality ––9.6/10–––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––7%–––––
Open lifts ––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/kmclear advantage316 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km–381 pph/km372 pph/km–
Lift-system coverage 0.48×clear advantage0.18×0.28×0.28×–0.28×0.29×–
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift5.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift1.2 km/lift2.7 km/lift5.8 km/lift1.2 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 4°C1°C1°C1°C3°C8°C9°C8°C
Maximum temperature 11°C8°C9°C6°C7°C11°C20°C13°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –family–family–familyfamily–
Piste variety slopesslopesslopesslopes––––
Off-piste offpiste–offpiste–––offpiste–
Cross-country ––––––––
Lift network –liftsliftslifts––––
Mountain restaurants –restaurantsrestaurantsrestaurants––––
Après-ski –apresskiapresskiapresski––––
Public transport transittransittransit–transittransit––
Best airport transfer 63 min78 min104 min441 min56 min63 min153 min62 min
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer169 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer42 km/h transfer38 km/h transfer27 km/h transfer15 km/h transfer