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.

Selected8 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.

8 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

Grindelwald narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 6 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Grindelwald

76/100
Why
  1. Grindelwald narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 6 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.
Limited evidenceUpdated 23 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (76/100).

Evidence coverage is limited; the ranking may move with new observations.

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 23 h ago1.4 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Grindelwald

Large-domain explorerEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Grindelwald leads Chamonix Terrain fit +2.6 pts and Snow reliability +1.6 pts
Snow now -4.0Terrain fit +2.6Snow reliability +1.6Access +1.0
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. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 20 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.4pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence75%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier6 options

2 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.

Lift systemChamonix

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 20 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

14 → 20
ScaleChamonix

Reduce scale weight from 16 to 3 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

16 → 3
Why Grindelwald leads Chamonix · 1.4 pts
Current opportunity-4.0 pts
Lift system-2.9 pts
Scale+2.1 pts
Terrain+1.8 pts
Snow+1.6 pts
Family & value+1.6 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.

Grindelwald

#1 · Jungfrau Top Skiregion · Switzerland

Decision76/100
Fit76/100
Now0/100
Quality6.8/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6868/100Terrain7878/100Access8271 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.

Fit76.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision76.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow68/100 · 73% evidence 16.2 / 24.0 pts
Terrain83/100 · 80% evidence 18.2 / 22.0 pts
Scale98/100 · 85% evidence 15.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system45/100 · 68% evidence 6.3 / 14.0 pts
Access82/100 · 68% evidence 9.8 / 12.0 pts
Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 9.8 / 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 · 78/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area204 km · 2,174 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m41%Best transfer71 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

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 Decision74.7/100
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 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..

Chandolin

#3 · Saint Luc Chandolin · Switzerland

Decision66/100
Fit66/100
Now0/100
Quality7.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7474/100Terrain6363/100
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.

Fit66.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision66.3/100
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
Terrain71/100 · 80% evidence 17.7 / 25.0 pts
Scale80/100 · 100% evidence 14.5 / 18.2 pts
Lift system24/100 · 68% evidence 3.8 / 15.9 pts
Family & value74/100 · 41% evidence 10.1 / 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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useSnow-first trips · 69/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area60 km · 1,300 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m90%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Breuil Cervinia

#4 · 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

#5 · 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.

San Bernardino

#6 · San Bernardino · Switzerland

Decision62/100
Fit62/100
Now0/100
Quality7.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7474/100Terrain6161/100Access46125 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.

Fit62.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision62.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow74/100 · 37% evidence 17.6 / 24.0 pts
Terrain67/100 · 52% evidence 14.8 / 22.0 pts
Scale69/100 · 100% evidence 11.1 / 16.0 pts
Lift system24/100 · 68% evidence 3.3 / 14.0 pts
Access46/100 · 68% evidence 5.5 / 12.0 pts
Family & value81/100 · 41% evidence 9.7 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 59%

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 useSnow-first trips · 66/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area40 km · 917 m verticalBest transfer125 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 61/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Roldal

#7 · Roldal · Norway

Decision58/100
Fit58/100
Now0/100
Quality9.2/10
Now00 cm freshReliability5454/100Terrain5959/100
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.

Fit57.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow54/100 · 37% evidence 14.7 / 27.3 pts
Terrain60/100 · 52% evidence 15.1 / 25.0 pts
Scale48/100 · 100% evidence 8.8 / 18.2 pts
Lift system48/100 · 68% evidence 7.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 11.7 / 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 · 65/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area15 km · 601 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..
  • Solid reliability match · 54/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

The ski area is comparatively compact.

Tavascan

#8 · Pleta del Prat · Spain

Decision42/100
Fit46/100
Now6/100
Quality–/10
Now626 cm upperReliability5555/100Terrain4242/100
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.

Fit45.592% weight Now5.78% weight Decision42.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow55/100 · 37% evidence 15.1 / 27.3 pts
Terrain47/100 · 44% evidence 11.9 / 25.0 pts
Scale33/100 · 100% evidence 6.0 / 18.2 pts
Lift system35/100 · 68% evidence 5.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value51/100 · 41% evidence 7.0 / 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.

Mountain snow26 cm 5.7 / 65.2 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 34.8 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 46%

Destination typeBalanced all-rounderBest useSnow-first trips · 49/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area5 km · 485 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 42/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 55/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

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
AttributeGrindelwaldJungfrau Top SkiregionChamonixChamonix ValleyChandolinSaint Luc ChandolinBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalSan BernardinoSan BernardinoRoldalRoldalTavascanPleta del Prat
Assessment
Decision score 76/10075/10066/10064/10064/10062/10058/10042/100
Structural Fit 76/10082/100clear advantage66/10075/10064/10062/10058/10046/100
Current opportunity 0/10029/100clear advantage0/10022/1000/1000/1000/1006/100
Overall quality 6.8/106.0/107.0/109.2/108.7/107.2/109.2/10–
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 71/10068/10069/10076/10078/10059/10092/100clear advantage33/100
Typical daytime high 1°C3°C1°C-2°C1°C3°C-1°C8°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––
Typical overnight low -6°C-4°C-6°C-7°C-6°C-6°C-6°C1°C
Rating 7.4/108.1/107.0/108.1/107.4/105.3/107.1/105.0/10
Area size class 150–250 km150–250 km50–100 km250+ km100–150 km20–50 km20 km or less20 km or less
Ability profile intermediateadvancedadvancedadvancedadvancedintermediateintermediateadvanced
Price class highhighhighhighhighhighavg–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 204 km175 km60 km322 kmclear advantage142 km40 km15 km5 km
Lowest point 796 m1,000 m1,680 m1,562 m1,472 m1,608 m680 m1,712 m
Highest point 2,970 m3,842 m2,980 m3,899 m3,573 m2,525 m1,281 m2,197 m
Vertical range 2,174 m2,842 mclear advantage1,300 m2,337 m2,101 m917 m601 m485 m
Blue pistes 40%34%33%23%22%49%53%20%
Red pistes 44%44%50%68%62%41%40%80%
Black pistes 16%22%clear advantage17%8%16%10%7%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 41%55%90%92%57%–––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%0%0%21%clear advantage0%–––
Piste-mix diversity 93/10097/10092/10074/10084/10086/10080/10072/100
Slope-angle diversity 73/10086/100clear advantage43/10051/10068/100–––
Very/extremely steep terrain 12%21%clear advantage3%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–––26 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 cm–
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––7%––––
Open lifts ––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 291 pph/km556 pph/kmclear advantage220 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km284 pph/km443 pph/km340 pph/km
Lift-system coverage 0.40×0.48×clear advantage0.24×0.28×0.28×0.21×0.36×0.36×
Terrain per lift 4.1 km/lift2.5 km/lift4.0 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift3.6 km/lift2.5 km/lift2.5 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 5°C4°C1°C1°C1°C1°C6°C5°C
Maximum temperature 11°C11°C10°C9°C6°C8°C8°C10°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability ––––family–––
Piste variety slopesslopes–slopesslopes–––
Off-piste –offpiste–offpiste––––
Cross-country ––––––––
Lift network lifts––liftslifts–––
Mountain restaurants –––restaurantsrestaurants–––
Après-ski –––apresskiapresski–––
Public transport transittransittransittransit––––
Best airport transfer 71 min63 min–104 min441 min125 min––
Skiing per transfer hour 172 km/h transfer166 km/h transfer–186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer––