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.

Selected6 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Karersee narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 69/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Karersee

76/100

Why

Karersee narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 69/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago

Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (76/100).

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Chamonix is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

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

Karersee

Large-domain explorerEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 69/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.

Why Karersee leads Chamonix Terrain fit +10.2 pts and Snow reliability +4.1 pts

Terrain fit +10.2Access -8.8Snow reliability +4.1Snow now -4.0

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. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultReduce family & value weight from 12 to 4 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.6pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 2–3.

Evidence confidence47%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier3 options

3 options are dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Lowest-regret optionChamonix · 94% 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 4 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 4

TerrainChamonix

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 41 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

22 → 41

ScaleChamonix

Increase scale weight from 16 to 40 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

16 → 40

Why Karersee leads Chamonix · 1.6 pts

Access-8.8 pts

Family & value+4.2 pts

Snow+4.1 pts

Current opportunity-4.0 pts

Lift system+3.4 pts

Terrain+1.4 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.

Karersee

#1 · Karersee Welschnofen · Italy

Decision76/100

Fit76/100

Now0/100

Quality5.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6969/100Terrain7979/100

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.

Fit76.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision76.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow69/100 · 37% evidence 18.7 / 27.3 pts

Terrain71/100 · 52% evidence 17.8 / 25.0 pts

Scale82/100 · 85% evidence 14.8 / 18.2 pts

Lift system80/100 · 8% evidence 12.7 / 15.9 pts

Family & value91/100 · 41% evidence 12.4 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 40%

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 · 80/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area42 km · 1,218 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 69/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

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

Chamonix

#2 · 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..

Golm

#3 · Golm im Montafon · Austria

Decision69/100

Fit69/100

Now0/100

Quality8.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability5656/100Terrain7474/100

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.

Fit69.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision69.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow56/100 · 37% evidence 15.2 / 27.3 pts

Terrain72/100 · 52% evidence 18.0 / 25.0 pts

Scale78/100 · 100% evidence 14.2 / 18.2 pts

Lift system63/100 · 68% evidence 10.0 / 15.9 pts

Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 11.6 / 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 · 72/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area27 km · 1,450 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 56/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow trails the selected-set median by 14 points.

Les Marecottes

#4 · Les Marecottes Salvan · Switzerland

Decision64/100

Fit64/100

Now0/100

Quality7.8/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6060/100Terrain6666/100

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.

Fit64.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision64.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow60/100 · 73% evidence 16.3 / 27.3 pts

Terrain80/100 · 80% evidence 20.0 / 25.0 pts

Scale59/100 · 100% evidence 10.7 / 18.2 pts

Lift system50/100 · 68% evidence 8.0 / 15.9 pts

Family & value69/100 · 41% evidence 9.4 / 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 typeTerrain-led destinationBest useAdvanced skiing · 68/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area9 km · 1,110 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m33%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 60/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Scale trails the selected-set median by 30 points.

Breuil Cervinia

#5 · 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

#6 · 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.

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	KarerseeKarersee Welschnofen	ChamonixChamonix Valley	GolmGolm im Montafon	Les MarecottesLes Marecottes Salvan	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal
Assessment
Decision score	76/100	75/100	69/100	64/100	64/100	64/100
Structural Fit	76/100	82/100clear advantage	69/100	64/100	75/100	64/100
Current opportunity	0/100	29/100clear advantage	0/100	0/100	22/100	0/100
Overall quality	5.0/10	6.0/10	8.0/10	7.8/10	9.2/10clear advantage	8.7/10
Recommendation confidence	Low	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	61/100	68/100	49/100	63/100	76/100	78/100
Typical daytime high	3°C	3°C	5°C	4°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-4°C	-2°C	-5°C	-7°C	-6°C
Rating	8.0/10	8.1/10	6.9/10	6.6/10	8.1/10	7.4/10
Area size class	20–50 km	150–250 km	20–50 km	20 km or less	250+ km	100–150 km
Ability profile	intermediate	advanced	intermediate	advanced	advanced	advanced
Price class	avg	high	avg	high	high	high
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	42 km	175 km	27 km	9 km	322 kmclear advantage	142 km
Lowest point	1,120 m	1,000 m	650 m	1,110 m	1,562 m	1,472 m
Highest point	2,338 m	3,842 m	2,100 m	2,220 m	3,899 m	3,573 m
Vertical range	1,218 m	2,842 mclear advantage	1,450 m	1,110 m	2,337 m	2,101 m
Blue pistes	55%	34%	50%	30%	23%	22%
Red pistes	30%	44%	45%	56%	68%	62%
Black pistes	15%	22%clear advantage	6%	14%	8%	16%
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	55%	–	33%	92%clear advantage	57%
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	0%	–	0%	21%clear advantage	0%
Piste-mix diversity	89/100	97/100	79/100	88/100	74/100	84/100
Slope-angle diversity	–	86/100clear advantage	–	74/100	51/100	68/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	21%clear advantage	–	10%	6%	2%
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 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
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–	7%	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	556 pph/km	616 pph/km	502 pph/km	298 pph/km	289 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	–	0.48×clear advantage	0.37×	0.36×	0.28×	0.28×
Terrain per lift	3.2 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	3.0 km/lift	2.3 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	-1°C	4°C	4°C	7°C	1°C	1°C
Maximum temperature	9°C	11°C	14°C	11°C	9°C	6°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	lifts
Mountain restaurants	–	–	–	–	restaurants	restaurants
Après-ski	–	–	–	–	apresski	apresski
Public transport	–	transit	–	–	transit	–
Best airport transfer	–	63 minclear advantage	–	–	104 min	441 min
Skiing per transfer hour	–	166 km/h transfer	–	–	186 km/h transfer	19 km/h transfer

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Karersee

Karersee

Resort overview

Karersee

Chamonix

Golm

Les Marecottes

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Detailed comparison