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

Chamonix narrowly leads 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. Mottaret is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Effectively tied

Chamonix

75/100

Why

Chamonix narrowly leads 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. Mottaret is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago

Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
Solid upper-mountain snow base at 142 cm.

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeMottaret

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Mottaret 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.

Open webcams Show on map Inspect forecast

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Chamonix

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Mottaret. 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—but the result is close.

Why Chamonix leads Mottaret Access +8.8 pts and Snow now +3.9 pts

Terrain fit -9.4Access +8.8Snow now +3.9Snow reliability -2.0

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

Strongest alternativeMottaret

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

What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 19 and Mottaret becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.1pts

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 frontier3 options

1 option is 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.

Family & valueMottaret

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 19 and Mottaret becomes the leading option.

12 → 19

ScaleMottaret

Increase scale weight from 16 to 25 and Mottaret becomes the leading option.

16 → 25

TerrainMottaret

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 12 and Mottaret becomes the leading option.

22 → 12

SnowMottaret

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 3 and Mottaret becomes the leading option.

24 → 3

Why Chamonix leads Mottaret · 1.1 pts

Access+8.8 pts

Scale-4.5 pts

Family & value-3.9 pts

Current opportunity+3.9 pts

Snow-2.0 pts

Lift system-0.8 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 96% 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..

Mottaret

#2 · Trois Vallees · France

Decision74/100

Fit74/100

Now0/100

Quality9.1/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6161/100Terrain7878/100

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.

Fit73.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision73.6/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow61/100 · 73% evidence 16.6 / 27.3 pts

Terrain66/100 · 80% evidence 16.6 / 25.0 pts

Scale100/100 · 100% evidence 18.1 / 18.2 pts

Lift system64/100 · 68% evidence 10.1 / 15.9 pts

Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 12.1 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 76/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area600 km · 2,130 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 78/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 61/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow trails the selected-set median by 11 points.

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · 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 Now24.822% 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 terrain6% 1.2 / 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

#4 · 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	ChamonixChamonix Valley	MottaretTrois Vallees	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	SaasSaastal
Assessment
Decision score	75/100	74/100	65/100	64/100
Structural Fit	82/100clear advantage	74/100	75/100	64/100
Current opportunity	29/100	0/100	25/100	0/100
Overall quality	6.0/10	9.1/10	9.2/10	8.7/10
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	68/100	86/100clear advantage	76/100	78/100
Typical daytime high	3°C	1°C	-2°Cclear advantage	1°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-5°C	-7°C	-6°C
Rating	8.1/10	7.7/10	8.1/10	7.4/10
Area size class	150–250 km	250+ km	250+ km	100–150 km
Ability profile	advanced	novice	advanced	advanced
Price class	high	high	high	high
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	175 km	600 kmclear advantage	322 km	142 km
Lowest point	1,000 m	1,100 m	1,562 m	1,472 m
Highest point	3,842 m	3,230 m	3,899 m	3,573 m
Vertical range	2,842 mclear advantage	2,130 m	2,337 m	2,101 m
Blue pistes	34%	56%	23%	22%
Red pistes	44%	34%	68%	62%
Black pistes	22%clear advantage	10%	8%	16%
Terrain above 2,000 m	55%	0%	92%clear advantage	57%
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%	21%clear advantage	0%
Piste-mix diversity	97/100clear advantage	84/100	74/100	84/100
Slope-angle diversity	86/100clear advantage	40/100	51/100	68/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	21%clear advantage	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+96% vs average · 87th percentile	–	Below typical-20% vs average · 23th percentile	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	Below typical-43% vs average · 56th percentile	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	Close to typical-33% vs average · 39th 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 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Snow quality	–	–	9.6/10	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	6%	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	556 pph/kmclear advantage	484 pph/km	298 pph/km	289 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	0.48×clear advantage	0.31×	0.28×	0.28×
Terrain per lift	2.5 km/lift	3.8 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	3.6 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	2°C	2°C	0°C	0°C
Maximum temperature	10°C	10°C	8°C	9°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	family	–	family
Piste variety	slopes	slopes	slopes	slopes
Off-piste	offpiste	offpiste	offpiste	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	lifts	lifts	lifts
Mountain restaurants	–	restaurants	restaurants	restaurants
Après-ski	–	–	apresski	apresski
Public transport	transit	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

Chamonix

Chamonix

Resort overview

Chamonix

Mottaret

Breuil Cervinia

Saas

Detailed comparison