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 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. Fiescheralp is the strongest alternative. 7 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options 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. Fiescheralp is the strongest alternative. 7 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 4 options 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.
AlternativeFiescheralp
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Fiescheralp 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 ago0.5 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 Fiescheralp. 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 Fiescheralp Access +8.8 pts and Snow now +4.0 pts
Access +8.8Terrain fit -6.8Snow reliability -5.6Snow now +4.0
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeFiescheralp

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Fiescheralp 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 Fiescheralp becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.5pts

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 frontier7 options

1 option is 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 systemFiescheralp

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 11 and Fiescheralp becomes the leading option.

14 → 11
SnowFiescheralp

Increase snow weight from 24 to 30 and Fiescheralp becomes the leading option.

24 → 30
Family & valueFiescheralp

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 19 and Fiescheralp becomes the leading option.

12 → 19
TerrainFiescheralp

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 12 and Fiescheralp becomes the leading option.

22 → 12
Why Chamonix leads Fiescheralp · 0.5 pts
Access+8.8 pts
Snow-5.6 pts
Current opportunity+4.0 pts
Family & value-2.8 pts
Scale-2.6 pts
Terrain-1.9 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..

Fiescheralp

#2 · Aletsch Arena · Switzerland

Decision74/100
Fit74/100
Now0/100
Quality9.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7474/100Terrain7474/100
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.

Fit74.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision74.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow74/100 · 73% evidence 20.2 / 27.3 pts
Terrain73/100 · 80% evidence 18.3 / 25.0 pts
Scale89/100 · 100% evidence 16.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system54/100 · 68% evidence 8.7 / 15.9 pts
Family & value81/100 · 41% evidence 11.0 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 66%

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 · 75/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area104 km · 1,024 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m66%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

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.

Klinovec

#5 · Klinovec · Czech Republik

Decision61/100
Fit61/100
Now0/100
Quality7.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4747/100Terrain6666/100
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.

Fit61.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision61.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow47/100 · 37% evidence 12.8 / 27.3 pts
Terrain58/100 · 52% evidence 14.5 / 25.0 pts
Scale58/100 · 100% evidence 10.6 / 18.2 pts
Lift system69/100 · 68% evidence 10.9 / 15.9 pts
Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 12.1 / 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 reliabilityVery highSki area32 km · 481 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 47/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Sattel

#6 · Sattel Hochstuckli · Switzerland

Decision57/100
Fit57/100
Now0/100
Quality3.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3535/100Terrain6262/100Access7644 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.

Fit57.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow35/100 · 73% evidence 8.5 / 24.0 pts
Terrain46/100 · 80% evidence 10.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale41/100 · 100% evidence 6.5 / 16.0 pts
Lift system88/100 · 68% evidence 12.4 / 14.0 pts
Access76/100 · 68% evidence 9.1 / 12.0 pts
Family & value88/100 · 41% evidence 10.6 / 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 67/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area3 km · 691 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer44 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 35/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Simonhohe

#7 · Simonhohe · Austria

Decision51/100
Fit51/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3535/100Terrain5757/100
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.

Fit51.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision51.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow35/100 · 37% evidence 9.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain48/100 · 44% evidence 12.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale42/100 · 100% evidence 7.6 / 18.2 pts
Lift system52/100 · 68% evidence 8.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value100/100 · 28% evidence 13.6 / 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 · 63/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area15 km · 298 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 57/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 35/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Saalfelden am Steinernen Meer

#8 · Saalfelden am Steinernen Meer · Austria

Decision43/100
Fit43/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3939/100Terrain4141/100Access6469 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.

Fit42.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision42.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow39/100 · 54% evidence 9.2 / 24.0 pts
Terrain35/100 · 56% evidence 7.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale28/100 · 58% evidence 4.5 / 16.0 pts
Lift system13/100 · 8% evidence 1.8 / 14.0 pts
Access64/100 · 68% evidence 7.6 / 12.0 pts
Family & value99/100 · 28% evidence 11.9 / 12.0 pts

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 · 56/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area5 km · – verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer69 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Unknown altitude
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 41/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 39/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Embd

#9 · · 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.

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 ValleyFiescheralpAletsch ArenaBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalKlinovecKlinovecSattelSattel HochstuckliSimonhoheSimonhoheSaalfelden am Steinernen MeerSaalfelden am Steinernen MeerEmbdSwitzerland
Assessment
Decision score 75/10074/10064/10064/10061/10057/10051/10043/100–
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage74/10075/10064/10061/10057/10051/10043/100–
Current opportunity 29/100clear advantage0/10022/1000/1000/1000/1000/1000/100–
Overall quality 6.0/109.0/109.2/108.7/107.0/103.2/10–––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumLowMediumLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10080/10076/10078/10076/10033/10038/10051/100–
Typical daytime high 3°C1°C-2°C1°C-1°C4°C5°C4°C–
Typical snow/freezing level –––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-5°C-7°C-6°C-6°C-3°C-2°C-2°C–
Rating 8.1/107.4/108.1/107.4/107.6/107.0/10–––
Area size class 150–250 km100–150 km250+ km100–150 km20–50 km20 km or less20 km or less20 km or less–
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedadvancedintermediatenoviceadvancednovice–
Price class highhighhighhighavghighlowlow–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km104 km322 kmclear advantage142 km32 km3 km15 km5 km–
Lowest point 1,000 m1,845 mclear advantage1,562 m1,472 m763 m800 m1,042 m––
Highest point 3,842 m2,869 m3,899 m3,573 m1,244 m1,491 m1,340 m––
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage1,024 m2,337 m2,101 m481 m691 m298 m––
Blue pistes 34%40%23%22%55%67%53%60%–
Red pistes 44%48%68%62%33%33%47%40%–
Black pistes 22%clear advantage12%8%16%12%0%0%0%–
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%66%92%clear advantage57%–0%–0%–
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%21%clear advantage0%–0%–0%–
Piste-mix diversity 97/10088/10074/10084/10086/10092/100100/10097/100–
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage57/10051/10068/100–25/100–10/100–
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage7%6%2%–1%–0%–
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 percentile–Well 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 cm–19 cm––––––
Mid-mountain snow 99 cmclear advantage–53 cm––––––
Mountain snow 145 cmclear advantage–75 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 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––7%––––––
Open lifts –––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km402 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km759 pph/km1,753 pph/kmclear advantage582 pph/km––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.32×0.28×0.28×0.33×0.80×clear advantage0.28×––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift3.0 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift1.9 km/lift0.5 km/lift2.1 km/lift2.5 km/lift–
Weather
Minimum temperature 4°C-4°C1°C1°C2°C5°C3°C3°C2°C
Maximum temperature 11°C6°C9°C6°C9°C12°C13°C11°C12°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –family–familyfamily––––
Piste variety slopesslopesslopesslopes–––––
Off-piste offpiste–offpiste––––––
Cross-country –––––––––
Lift network –liftsliftslifts–––––
Mountain restaurants ––restaurantsrestaurants–––––
Après-ski ––apresskiapresski–––––
Public transport transit–transit––transit–––
Best airport transfer 63 min–104 min441 min–44 min–69 min–
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer–186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–4 km/h transfer–4 km/h transfer–