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.

Selected4 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.

4 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

San Cassiano narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 48/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Balanced profileEarly winter
Effectively tied

San Cassiano

70/100
Why
  1. San Cassiano narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 48/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier.
Limited evidenceUpdated 21 h ago
  • Structural fit score: 70/100.

Warm daytime temperature may weaken lower-mountain snow.

AlternativeChamonix
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Chamonix is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.
Limited evidenceUpdated 21 h ago0.4 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

San Cassiano

Large-domain explorerEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 48/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why San Cassiano leads Chamonix Terrain fit +11.2 pts and Snow reliability +2.5 pts
Terrain fit +11.2Access -8.4Snow now -5.0Snow reliability +2.5
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChamonix

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

What could change the resultReduce family & value weight from 12 to 10 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.4pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 3–3.

Evidence confidence69%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier3 options

1 option is dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Lowest-regret optionChamonix · 89% 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.

Family & valueChamonix

Reduce family & value weight from 12 to 10 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 10
TerrainChamonix

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 25 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

22 → 25
Lift systemChamonix

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

14 → 11
AccessChamonix

Increase access weight from 12 to 19 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 19
Why San Cassiano leads Chamonix · 0.4 pts
Access-8.4 pts
Current opportunity-5.0 pts
Family & value+4.3 pts
Lift system+4.2 pts
Scale+2.6 pts
Snow+2.5 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.

San Cassiano

#1 · Alta Badia · Italy

Decision70/100
Fit70/100
Now0/100
Quality6.6/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4848/100Terrain7878/100
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.

Fit69.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision69.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow48/100 · 72% evidence 13.1 / 27.3 pts
Terrain63/100 · 80% evidence 15.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale86/100 · 100% evidence 15.6 / 18.2 pts
Lift system82/100 · 68% evidence 13.0 / 15.9 pts
Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 12.2 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 65%

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 · 75/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area130 km · 1,454 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m23%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 48/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision69/100
Fit78/100
Now29/100
Quality6.0/10
Now29142 cm upperReliability5353/100Terrain8686/100Access8563 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.

Fit77.883% weight Now28.717% weight Decision69.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow53/100 · 72% evidence 12.8 / 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 · 81/100Snow reliabilityLowSki 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 88% 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..
  • Solid reliability match · 53/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Saas

#3 · Saastal · Switzerland

Decision62/100
Fit62/100
Now0/100
Quality8.7/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6868/100Terrain7070/100Access10441 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.

Fit62.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision62.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow68/100 · 72% evidence 16.2 / 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 · 69/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki 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 · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Breuil Cervinia

#4 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision58/100
Fit72/100
Now22/100
Quality9.2/10
Now2275 cm upperReliability8181/100Terrain7171/100Access61104 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.

Fit72.273% weight Now22.027% weight Decision58.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow81/100 · 72% evidence 19.3 / 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: 73%

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 useAdvanced skiing · 75/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki 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..
  • Strong reliability match · 81/100 — 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.

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible
AttributeSan CassianoAlta BadiaChamonixChamonix ValleySaasSaastalBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise
Assessment
Decision score 70/10069/10062/10058/100
Structural Fit 70/10078/100clear advantage62/10072/100
Current opportunity 0/10029/100clear advantage0/10022/100
Overall quality 6.6/106.0/108.7/109.2/10clear advantage
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumHigh
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 23/10030/10053/10057/100
Typical daytime high 7°C6°C4°C1°Cclear advantage
Typical snow/freezing level ––––
Typical overnight low 1°C0°C-2°C-3°C
Rating 8.2/108.1/107.4/108.1/10
Area size class 100–150 km150–250 km100–150 km250+ km
Ability profile noviceadvancedadvancedadvanced
Price class avghighhighhigh
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 130 km175 km142 km322 kmclear advantage
Lowest point 1,324 m1,000 m1,472 m1,562 m
Highest point 2,778 m3,842 m3,573 m3,899 m
Vertical range 1,454 m2,842 mclear advantage2,101 m2,337 m
Blue pistes 57%34%22%23%
Red pistes 36%44%62%68%
Black pistes 7%22%clear advantage16%8%
Terrain above 2,000 m 23%55%57%92%clear advantage
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%0%21%clear advantage
Piste-mix diversity 79/10097/100clear advantage84/10074/100
Slope-angle diversity 28/10086/100clear advantage68/10051/100
Very/extremely steep terrain 3%21%clear advantage2%6%
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+88% vs average · 82th percentile–Well below typical-40% vs average · 4th percentile
Valley snow versus typical –Well above typical100th percentile–Below typical-44% vs average · 54th percentile
Open slopes versus typical –––Close to typical-20% vs average · 46th percentile
Current snow
Valley snow –30 cm–19 cm
Mid-mountain snow –97 cmclear advantage–53 cm
Mountain snow –142 cmclear advantage–75 cm
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality –––9.6/10
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––7%
Open lifts ––––
Lift capacity per piste km 760 pph/kmclear advantage556 pph/km289 pph/km298 pph/km
Lift-system coverage 0.38×0.48×clear advantage0.28×0.28×
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift2.5 km/lift3.6 km/lift6.2 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 0°C0°C-9°C-13°C
Maximum temperature 9°C8°C1°C-8°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability family–family–
Piste variety slopesslopesslopesslopes
Off-piste –offpiste–offpiste
Cross-country ––––
Lift network lifts–liftslifts
Mountain restaurants restaurants–restaurantsrestaurants
Après-ski apresski–apresskiapresski
Public transport transittransit–transit
Best airport transfer –63 minclear advantage441 min104 min
Skiing per transfer hour –166 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer