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.

Selected4 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Breuil Cervinia is the strongest match because of 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. Filzmoos is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Recommended

Breuil Cervinia

68/100

Why

Breuil Cervinia is the strongest match because of 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. Filzmoos is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Mixed evidenceUpdated 17 h ago

Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (75/100).
Solid upper-mountain snow base at 101 cm.

AlternativeFilzmoos

Main uncertaintyMost 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.

Open webcams Show on map Inspect forecast

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Breuil Cervinia

High-alpine snow anchorLow-regret choice

Leads on 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.

Why Breuil Cervinia leads Filzmoos Snow reliability +8.8 pts and Snow now +2.7 pts

Snow reliability +8.8Access -3.6Snow now +2.7Terrain fit +2.6

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

Strongest alternativeFilzmoos

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

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 40 and Chamois becomes the leading option.

Lead margin10.6pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence75%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier4 options

No selected option is clearly dominated on the shared evidence.

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 systemChamois

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 40 and Chamois becomes the leading option.

14 → 40

AccessFilzmoos

Increase access weight from 12 to 52 and Filzmoos becomes the leading option.

12 → 52

Family & valueFilzmoos

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 67 and Filzmoos becomes the leading option.

12 → 67

Why Breuil Cervinia leads Filzmoos · 10.6 pts

Snow+8.8 pts

Scale+5.2 pts

Access-3.6 pts

Family & value-2.7 pts

Current opportunity+2.7 pts

Terrain+2.6 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.

Breuil Cervinia

#1 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision68/100

Fit75/100

Now20/100

Quality9.2/10

Now20101 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.

Fit75.486% weight Now20.114% weight Decision67.8/100

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 snow101 cm 14.4 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow19 cm 2.4 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow68 cm 3.2 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

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 22% 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.

Filzmoos

#2 · Filzmoos · Austria

Decision57/100

Fit57/100

Now0/100

Quality8.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4444/100Terrain5757/100Access8257 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.

Fit57.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.2/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow44/100 · 73% evidence 10.6 / 24.0 pts

Terrain53/100 · 80% evidence 11.6 / 22.0 pts

Scale53/100 · 100% evidence 8.5 / 16.0 pts

Lift system52/100 · 68% evidence 7.3 / 14.0 pts

Access82/100 · 68% evidence 9.9 / 12.0 pts

Family & value77/100 · 41% evidence 9.3 / 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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useFamily trips · 63/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area20 km · 621 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer57 minCurrent 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..
Mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Chamois

#3 · Chamois · Italy

Decision57/100

Fit57/100

Now0/100

Quality7.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6868/100Terrain5656/100Access39116 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.

Fit57.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow68/100 · 73% evidence 16.4 / 24.0 pts

Terrain59/100 · 80% evidence 12.9 / 22.0 pts

Scale41/100 · 100% evidence 6.6 / 16.0 pts

Lift system79/100 · 68% evidence 11.1 / 14.0 pts

Access39/100 · 68% evidence 4.7 / 12.0 pts

Family & value45/100 · 41% evidence 5.4 / 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 typeLifts-led destinationBest useSnow-first trips · 61/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area8 km · 687 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m93%Best transfer116 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 56/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

The ski area is comparatively compact.

Pila

#4 · Pila · Italy

Decision56/100

Fit63/100

Now13/100

Quality6.2/10

Now1350 cm upperReliability7070/100Terrain6363/100Access47118 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.

Fit62.686% weight Now12.814% weight Decision55.8/100

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

Access47/100 · 68% evidence 5.6 / 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.

Mountain snow50 cm 7.1 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow29 cm 3.7 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow42 cm 2.0 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 65/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area70 km · 1,200 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m73%Best transfer118 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

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

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	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	FilzmoosFilzmoos	ChamoisChamois	PilaPila
Assessment
Decision score	68/100clear advantage	57/100	57/100	56/100
Structural Fit	75/100clear advantage	57/100	57/100	63/100
Current opportunity	20/100clear advantage	0/100	0/100	13/100
Overall quality	9.2/10clear advantage	8.5/10	7.5/10	6.2/10
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	76/100	77/100	50/100	58/100
Typical daytime high	-2°C	2°C	-1°C	3°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-7°C	-5°C	-7°C	-3°C
Rating	8.1/10clear advantage	6.0/10	6.5/10	7.3/10
Area size class	250+ km	20 km or less	20 km or less	50–100 km
Ability profile	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced
Price class	high	avg	avg	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	322 kmclear advantage	20 km	8 km	70 km
Lowest point	1,562 m	970 m	1,812 mclear advantage	1,540 m
Highest point	3,899 mclear advantage	1,591 m	2,499 m	2,740 m
Vertical range	2,337 mclear advantage	621 m	687 m	1,200 m
Blue pistes	23%	45%	13%	16%
Red pistes	68%	50%	88%	73%
Black pistes	8%	5%	0%	11%
Terrain above 2,000 m	92%	0%	93%	73%
Terrain above 3,000 m	21%clear advantage	0%	0%	0%
Piste-mix diversity	74/100	78/100	54/100	70/100
Slope-angle diversity	51/100	24/100	57/100	49/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	6%	1%	7%	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 below typical-22% vs average · 19th percentile	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	Close to typical-4% vs average · 81th percentile	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	19 cm	–	–	29 cm
Mid-mountain snow	68 cmclear advantage	–	–	42 cm
Mountain snow	101 cmclear advantage	–	–	50 cm
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Snow quality	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	298 pph/km	482 pph/km	844 pph/kmclear advantage	372 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	0.28×	0.36×	0.68×clear advantage	0.29×
Terrain per lift	6.3 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	1.3 km/lift	5.8 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	4°C	7°C	4°C	11°C
Maximum temperature	13°C	10°C	10°C	18°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–	family	family
Piste variety	slopes	–	–	–
Off-piste	offpiste	–	–	offpiste
Cross-country	–	–	–	–
Lift network	lifts	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	restaurants	–	–	–
Après-ski	apresski	–	–	–
Public transport	transit	transit	–	–
Best airport transfer	104 min	57 minclear advantage	116 min	118 min
Skiing per transfer hour	186 km/h transferclear advantage	21 km/h transfer	4 km/h transfer	36 km/h transfer

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Breuil Cervinia

Breuil Cervinia

Resort overview

Breuil Cervinia

Filzmoos

Chamois

Pila

Detailed comparison