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 is the strongest match 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. Waidring is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

Chamonix

75/100
Why
  1. Chamonix is the strongest match 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. Waidring is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 19 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 142 cm.
AlternativeWaidring
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.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 19 h ago7.2 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 choice

Leads on 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.

Why Chamonix leads Waidring Snow now +3.9 pts and Snow reliability +3.5 pts
Snow now +3.9Snow reliability +3.5Access -1.9Terrain fit +1.7
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeWaidring

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

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 51 and Waidring becomes the leading option.

Lead margin7.2pts

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 frontier4 options

3 options are 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 systemWaidring

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 51 and Waidring becomes the leading option.

14 → 51
AccessWaidring

Increase access weight from 12 to 73 and Waidring becomes the leading option.

12 → 73
Family & valueWaidring

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 86 and Waidring becomes the leading option.

12 → 86
SnowBreuil Cervinia

Increase snow weight from 24 to 98 and Breuil Cervinia becomes the leading option.

24 → 98
Why Chamonix leads Waidring · 7.2 pts
Terrain+5.0 pts
Current opportunity+3.9 pts
Snow+3.5 pts
Lift system-3.4 pts
Access-1.9 pts
Scale+1.8 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
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..

Waidring

#2 · Waidring Steinplatte · Austria

Decision68/100
Fit68/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4646/100Terrain7171/100Access8955 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.

Fit67.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision67.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow46/100 · 73% evidence 11.1 / 24.0 pts
Terrain52/100 · 72% evidence 11.4 / 22.0 pts
Scale74/100 · 85% evidence 11.8 / 16.0 pts
Lift system90/100 · 8% evidence 12.6 / 14.0 pts
Access89/100 · 68% evidence 10.7 / 12.0 pts
Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 9.9 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 61%

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 · 74/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area42 km · 800 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer55 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 46/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Bad Tarasp

#3 · Scuol Motta Naluns · Switzerland

Decision67/100
Fit67/100
Now0/100
Quality7.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6666/100Terrain6767/100
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.

Fit66.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision66.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow66/100 · 73% evidence 18.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain70/100 · 80% evidence 17.4 / 25.0 pts
Scale90/100 · 85% evidence 16.4 / 18.2 pts
Lift system28/100 · 68% evidence 4.4 / 15.9 pts
Family & value77/100 · 41% evidence 10.5 / 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 useAdvanced skiing · 68/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area70 km · 1,535 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m56%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 67/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 66/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Alpendorf

#4 · Snow Space Salzburg · Austria

Decision65/100
Fit65/100
Now0/100
Quality6.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4848/100Terrain7272/100
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.

Fit65.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision65.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow48/100 · 73% evidence 13.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain57/100 · 80% evidence 14.1 / 25.0 pts
Scale92/100 · 100% evidence 16.7 / 18.2 pts
Lift system80/100 · 68% evidence 12.7 / 15.9 pts
Family & value64/100 · 41% evidence 8.8 / 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 typeScale-led destinationBest useShort breaks · 66/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area120 km · 1,240 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 72/100 — 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.

Breuil Cervinia

#5 · 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

#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.

Sankt Lambrecht

#7 · Grebenzen · Austria

Decision55/100
Fit55/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4545/100Terrain5959/100
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.

Fit54.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision54.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow45/100 · 37% evidence 12.4 / 27.3 pts
Terrain53/100 · 44% evidence 13.4 / 25.0 pts
Scale61/100 · 100% evidence 11.0 / 18.2 pts
Lift system68/100 · 68% evidence 10.9 / 15.9 pts
Family & value53/100 · 41% evidence 7.3 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 49%

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 useShort breaks · 56/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area14 km · 860 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 59/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 45/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Neuschonau

#8 · Neuschonau · Germany

Decision26/100
Fit26/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2222/100Terrain2727/100
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.

Fit25.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision25.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow22/100 · 37% evidence 6.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain25/100 · 16% evidence 6.2 / 25.0 pts
Scale23/100 · 85% evidence 4.1 / 18.2 pts
Lift system22/100 · 8% evidence 3.5 / 15.9 pts
Family & value44/100 · 13% evidence 6.0 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 29%

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-led destinationBest useAll-round trips · 26/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area3 km · 300 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 27/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 22/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Coswig

#9 · · Germany

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 dataNo current update
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 ValleyWaidringWaidring SteinplatteBad TaraspScuol Motta NalunsAlpendorfSnow Space SalzburgBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalSankt LambrechtGrebenzenNeuschonauNeuschonauCoswigGermany
Assessment
Decision score 75/100clear advantage68/10067/10065/10065/10064/10055/10026/100–
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage68/10067/10065/10075/10064/10055/10026/100–
Current opportunity 29/1000/1000/1000/10025/1000/1000/1000/100–
Overall quality 6.0/10–7.5/106.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/10–––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10062/10052/10070/10076/10078/10033/10029/100–
Typical daytime high 3°C3°C2°C4°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C4°C2°C–
Typical snow/freezing level –––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-4°C-8°C-3°C-7°C-6°C-3°C-4°C–
Rating 8.1/106.8/106.4/107.3/108.1/107.4/106.8/104.4/10–
Area size class 150–250 km20–50 km50–100 km100–150 km250+ km100–150 km20 km or less20 km or less–
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancednovice–
Price class highlowhighavghighhigh–avg–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km42 km70 km120 km322 kmclear advantage142 km14 km3 km–
Lowest point 1,000 m1,100 m1,250 m740 m1,562 m1,472 m1,010 m700 m–
Highest point 3,842 m1,900 m2,785 m1,980 m3,899 m3,573 m1,870 m1,000 m–
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage800 m1,535 m1,240 m2,337 m2,101 m860 m300 m–
Blue pistes 34%48%39%28%23%22%21%––
Red pistes 44%48%46%68%68%62%77%––
Black pistes 22%clear advantage5%16%3%8%16%2%––
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%0%56%0%92%clear advantage57%–––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%0%0%21%clear advantage0%–––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10078/10092/10067/10074/10084/10055/100––
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage28/10037/10034/10051/10068/100–––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage1%3%1%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+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 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–
Snow quality ––––9.6/10––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm–0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––––7%––––
Open lifts –––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km–313 pph/km687 pph/kmclear advantage298 pph/km289 pph/km606 pph/km––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×–0.20×0.40×0.28×0.28×0.54×––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift2.0 km/lift5.8 km/lift2.7 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift1.8 km/lift1.0 km/lift–
Weather
Minimum temperature 3°C1°C–4°C-8°C4°C1°C2°C–
Maximum temperature 12°C9°C–12°C-5°C11°C11°C9°C–
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –family–family–family–––
Piste variety slopes––slopesslopesslopes–––
Off-piste offpiste–––offpiste––––
Cross-country ––crosscountrycrosscountry–––––
Lift network ––liftsliftsliftslifts–––
Mountain restaurants –––restaurantsrestaurantsrestaurants–––
Après-ski –––apresskiapresskiapresski–––
Public transport transit––transittransit––––
Best airport transfer 63 min55 min––104 min441 min–––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer46 km/h transfer––186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–––