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

Grodig is the strongest match because of exceptional access match · 100/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Piesendorf is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options have limited evidence coverage.

Recommendation limited by evidence

Grodig

100/100

Why

Grodig is the strongest match because of exceptional access match · 100/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence. Piesendorf is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 21 h ago

Strong overall decision score (100/100).

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

AlternativePiesendorf

Main uncertaintyLimited evidence is available. Missing enriched fields are omitted rather than scored as zero.

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

Grodig

Access-led destinationLimited evidence

Leads on exceptional access match · 100/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence.

Why Grodig leads Piesendorf Access +100.0 pts

Access +100.0Terrain fit -60.5Snow reliability -22.7

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

Strongest alternativePiesendorf

Main uncertaintyLimited evidence is available. Missing enriched fields are omitted rather than scored as zero.

What could change the resultReduce access weight from 12 to 0 and Piesendorf becomes the leading option.

Lead margin16.9pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence17%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier5 options

2 options are dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Lowest-regret optionPiesendorf · 93% 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.

AccessPiesendorf

Reduce access weight from 12 to 0 and Piesendorf becomes the leading option.

12 → 0

Why Grodig leads Piesendorf · 16.9 pts

Access+100.0 pts

Snow-22.7 pts

Terrain-18.0 pts

Scale-17.6 pts

Lift system-13.3 pts

Family & value-11.6 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.

Grodig

#1 · · Austria

Decision100/100

Fit100/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Access10018 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.

Fit100.0100% weight Now–0% weight Decision100.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Access100/100 · 48% evidence 100.0 / 100.0 pts

Family & valueNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

ScaleNo data excluded

SnowNo data excluded

TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 6%

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 typeAccess-led destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalBest transfer18 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected date

Strengths

Exceptional access match · 100/100 — led by practical access; partial evidence..
Access is the strongest available structural dimension.

Consider

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

Piesendorf

#2 · Zell am See Kaprun · Austria

Decision83/100

Fit83/100

Now0/100

Quality5.9/10

Now00 cm freshReliability8383/100Terrain8383/100

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.

Fit83.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision83.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow83/100 · 73% evidence 22.7 / 27.3 pts

Terrain72/100 · 80% evidence 18.0 / 25.0 pts

Scale97/100 · 85% evidence 17.6 / 18.2 pts

Lift system83/100 · 68% evidence 13.3 / 15.9 pts

Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 11.6 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 84/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area141 km · 2,269 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m90%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m

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

#3 · 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 Decision74.7/100

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 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

#4 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision65/100

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 Decision64.5/100

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 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

#5 · 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.

Lenggries

#6 · Lenggries · Germany

Decision62/100

Fit62/100

Now0/100

Quality4.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4141/100Terrain6565/100Access8657 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.

Fit61.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision61.6/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow41/100 · 73% evidence 9.7 / 24.0 pts

Terrain69/100 · 80% evidence 15.2 / 22.0 pts

Scale68/100 · 100% evidence 10.8 / 16.0 pts

Lift system67/100 · 68% evidence 9.4 / 14.0 pts

Access86/100 · 68% evidence 10.3 / 12.0 pts

Family & value52/100 · 41% evidence 6.2 / 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 typeEfficient short-break baseBest useShort breaks · 65/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area31 km · 1,012 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer57 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 65/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Mixed reliability match · 41/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Beille

#7 · Beille · France

Decision43/100

Fit43/100

Now0/100

Quality4.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability5050/100Terrain4040/100

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.

Snow50/100 · 37% evidence 13.6 / 27.3 pts

Terrain9/100 · 39% evidence 2.3 / 25.0 pts

Scale7/100 · 100% evidence 1.2 / 18.2 pts

Lift system86/100 · 68% evidence 13.6 / 15.9 pts

Family & value87/100 · 31% evidence 11.8 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 47%

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 · 60/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area0 km · 17 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 40/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 50/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Zugerberg

#8 · Zugerberg · Switzerland

Decision30/100

Fit30/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability1616/100Terrain3636/100

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.

Fit30.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision30.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow16/100 · 37% evidence 4.2 / 27.3 pts

Terrain0/100 · 31% evidence 0.0 / 25.0 pts

Scale7/100 · 100% evidence 1.2 / 18.2 pts

Lift system91/100 · 68% evidence 14.4 / 15.9 pts

Family & value77/100 · 31% evidence 10.6 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 45%

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 typeLift-system performerBest useFamily trips · 48/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area0 km · 15 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 36/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 16/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Furstenfeld

#9 · · Austria

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	GrodigAustria	PiesendorfZell am See Kaprun	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal	LenggriesLenggries	BeilleBeille	ZugerbergZugerberg	FurstenfeldAustria
Assessment
Decision score	100/100clear advantage	83/100	75/100	65/100	64/100	62/100	43/100	30/100	–
Structural Fit	100/100clear advantage	83/100	82/100	75/100	64/100	62/100	43/100	30/100	–
Current opportunity	–	0/100	29/100	25/100	0/100	0/100	0/100	0/100	–
Overall quality	–	5.9/10	6.0/10	9.2/10clear advantage	8.7/10	4.0/10	4.5/10	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	–	47/100	68/100	76/100	78/100	49/100	40/100	11/100	–
Typical daytime high	–	6°C	3°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C	5°C	6°C	4°C	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	–	-1°C	-4°C	-7°C	-6°C	-2°C	-2°C	-3°C	–
Rating	–	7.2/10	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.4/10	7.2/10	6.8/10	4.6/10	–
Area size class	–	100–150 km	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km	20–50 km	20 km or less	20 km or less	–
Ability profile	–	intermediate	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	novice	novice	–
Price class	–	avg	high	high	high	avg	avg	avg	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	–	141 km	175 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km	31 km	0 km	0 km	–
Lowest point	–	760 m	1,000 m	1,562 m	1,472 m	700 m	1,810 mclear advantage	925 m	–
Highest point	–	3,029 m	3,842 m	3,899 m	3,573 m	1,712 m	1,827 m	940 m	–
Vertical range	–	2,269 m	2,842 mclear advantage	2,337 m	2,101 m	1,012 m	17 m	15 m	–
Blue pistes	–	44%	34%	23%	22%	11%	100%	100%	–
Red pistes	–	36%	44%	68%	62%	67%	0%	0%	–
Black pistes	–	20%	22%	8%	16%	21%	0%	0%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	90%	55%	92%	57%	0%	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	1%	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	0%	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	–	96/100	97/100	74/100	84/100	77/100	–	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	–	38/100	86/100clear advantage	51/100	68/100	51/100	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	4%	21%clear advantage	6%	2%	5%	–	–	–
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	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	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	7%	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	711 pph/km	556 pph/km	298 pph/km	289 pph/km	640 pph/km	2,350 pph/km	14,000 pph/kmclear advantage	–
Lift-system coverage	–	0.45×	0.48×	0.28×	0.28×	0.40×	1.00×	7.00×clear advantage	–
Terrain per lift	–	2.7 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	2.0 km/lift	0.2 km/lift	0.1 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	5°C	7°C	2°C	-7°C	-2°C	3°C	4°C	-3°C	5°C
Maximum temperature	11°C	12°C	9°C	-5°C	6°C	10°C	9°C	1°C	12°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	–	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	restaurants	–	restaurants	restaurants	–	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	apresski	–	apresski	apresski	–	–	–	–
Public transport	–	transit	transit	transit	–	transit	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	18 minclear advantage	–	63 min	104 min	441 min	57 min	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	–	166 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer	32 km/h transfer	–	–	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Grodig

Grodig

Resort overview

Grodig

Piesendorf

Chamonix

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Lenggries

Beille

Zugerberg

Furstenfeld

Detailed comparison