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

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Hintertux narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 81/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 93/100 — 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

Hintertux

82/100

Why

Hintertux narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 81/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 93/100 — 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.

Limited evidenceUpdated 9 min ago

Strong overall decision score (82/100).

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

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

Hintertux

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 81/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 93/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.

Why Hintertux leads Chamonix Snow reliability +5.3 pts

Snow reliability +5.3Terrain fit -3.1Access -1.9

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 snow weight from 24 to 22 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.5pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.

Evidence confidence62%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier3 options

5 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.

SnowChamonix

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 22 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

24 → 22

AccessChamonix

Increase access weight from 12 to 15 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 15

Family & valueChamonix

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 16 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

12 → 16

ScaleChamonix

Increase scale weight from 16 to 21 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

16 → 21

Why Hintertux leads Chamonix · 0.5 pts

Snow+5.3 pts

Access-1.9 pts

Scale-1.3 pts

Family & value-1.2 pts

Lift system-0.4 pts

Terrain-0.2 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.

Hintertux

#1 · Hintertux · Austria

Decision82/100

Fit82/100

Now–/100

Quality7.8/10

Reliability9393/100Terrain8181/100Access6982 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.

Fit82.4100% weight Now–0% weight Decision82.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow93/100 · 37% evidence 22.2 / 24.0 pts

Terrain86/100 · 52% evidence 18.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale90/100 · 85% evidence 14.4 / 16.0 pts

Lift system74/100 · 68% evidence 10.3 / 14.0 pts

Access69/100 · 68% evidence 8.3 / 12.0 pts

Family & value69/100 · 41% evidence 8.3 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 57%

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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useSnow-first trips · 86/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area64 km · 1,750 m verticalBest transfer82 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 81/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Exceptional reliability match · 93/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Family trails the selected-set median by 9 points.

Chamonix

#2 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision82/100

Fit82/100

Now–/100

Quality6.0/10

Reliability7171/100Terrain8686/100Access8563 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.

Fit81.9100% weight Now–0% weight Decision81.9/100

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.

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 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+ m

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..

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision75/100

Fit75/100

Now–/100

Quality9.2/10

Reliability9494/100Terrain7171/100Access61104 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.

Fit75.4100% weight Now–0% weight Decision75.4/100

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.

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 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+ m

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.

Crans sur Sierre

#4 · Crans Montana · Switzerland

Decision67/100

Fit67/100

Now–/100

Quality6.9/10

Reliability7171/100Terrain6666/100

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.

Fit67.1100% weight Now–0% weight Decision67.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow71/100 · 73% evidence 19.3 / 27.3 pts

Terrain71/100 · 80% evidence 17.8 / 25.0 pts

Scale86/100 · 100% evidence 15.6 / 18.2 pts

Lift system22/100 · 68% evidence 3.5 / 15.9 pts

Family & value80/100 · 41% evidence 10.9 / 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 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 69/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area140 km · 1,417 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m55%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Saas

#5 · Saastal · Switzerland

Decision64/100

Fit64/100

Now–/100

Quality8.7/10

Reliability7474/100Terrain7070/100Access10441 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 Now–0% 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 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 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.

Brienz

#6 · Axalp ob Brienz · Switzerland

Decision52/100

Fit52/100

Now–/100

Quality4.0/10

Reliability5252/100Terrain5050/100Access6383 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.

Fit52.3100% weight Now–0% weight Decision52.3/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow52/100 · 37% evidence 12.5 / 24.0 pts

Terrain50/100 · 52% evidence 10.9 / 22.0 pts

Scale54/100 · 100% evidence 8.7 / 16.0 pts

Lift system23/100 · 68% evidence 3.2 / 14.0 pts

Access63/100 · 68% evidence 7.5 / 12.0 pts

Family & value78/100 · 41% evidence 9.3 / 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 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 typeFamily-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 57/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area15 km · 537 m verticalBest transfer83 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 50/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 52/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Valsavarenche

#7 · Valsavarenche · Italy

Decision45/100

Fit45/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Reliability5757/100Terrain4040/100

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.

Fit44.7100% weight Now–0% weight Decision44.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow57/100 · 37% evidence 15.4 / 27.3 pts

Terrain6/100 · 31% evidence 1.6 / 25.0 pts

Scale50/100 · 85% evidence 9.1 / 18.2 pts

Lift system50/100 · 8% evidence 7.9 / 15.9 pts

Family & value78/100 · 31% evidence 10.7 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 34%

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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 56/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area28 km · 141 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 40/100 — led by substantial ski-area scale and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 57/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Gluringen

#8 · Gluringen · Switzerland

Decision40/100

Fit40/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Reliability3737/100Terrain4141/100

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.

Fit40.0100% weight Now–0% weight Decision40.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow37/100 · 37% evidence 10.1 / 27.3 pts

Terrain5/100 · 31% evidence 1.3 / 25.0 pts

Scale16/100 · 100% evidence 2.9 / 18.2 pts

Lift system76/100 · 68% evidence 12.1 / 15.9 pts

Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 43%

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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 60/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area1 km · 112 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 41/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 37/100 — 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.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	HintertuxHintertux	ChamonixChamonix Valley	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	Crans sur SierreCrans Montana	SaasSaastal	BrienzAxalp ob Brienz	ValsavarencheValsavarenche	GluringenGluringen
Assessment
Decision score	82/100	82/100	75/100	67/100	64/100	52/100	45/100	40/100
Structural Fit	82/100	82/100	75/100	67/100	64/100	52/100	45/100	40/100
Current opportunity	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Overall quality	7.8/10	6.0/10	9.2/10clear advantage	6.9/10	8.7/10	4.0/10	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	90/100clear advantage	68/100	76/100	74/100	78/100	41/100	69/100	37/100
Typical daytime high	-3°C	3°C	-2°C	3°C	1°C	5°C	3°C	4°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-10°Cclear advantage	-4°C	-7°C	-5°C	-6°C	0°C	-5°C	-5°C
Rating	7.3/10	8.1/10	8.1/10	7.6/10	7.4/10	5.4/10	4.8/10	–
Area size class	50–100 km	150–250 km	250+ km	100–150 km	100–150 km	20 km or less	20–50 km	20 km or less
Ability profile	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	advanced	intermediate	novice	novice
Price class	high	high	high	avg	high	high	–	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	64 km	175 km	322 kmclear advantage	140 km	142 km	15 km	28 km	1 km
Lowest point	1,500 m	1,000 m	1,562 m	1,510 m	1,472 m	1,422 m	1,540 m	1,333 m
Highest point	3,250 m	3,842 m	3,899 m	2,927 m	3,573 m	1,959 m	1,681 m	1,445 m
Vertical range	1,750 m	2,842 mclear advantage	2,337 m	1,417 m	2,101 m	537 m	141 m	112 m
Blue pistes	27%	34%	23%	39%	22%	73%	100%	100%
Red pistes	55%	44%	68%	50%	62%	10%	0%	0%
Black pistes	18%	22%	8%	11%	16%	17%	0%	0%
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	55%	92%clear advantage	55%	57%	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	0%	21%clear advantage	0%	0%	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	90/100	97/100	74/100	87/100	84/100	69/100	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	–	86/100clear advantage	51/100	47/100	68/100	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	21%clear advantage	6%	5%	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	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Fresh snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow quality	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	654 pph/km	556 pph/km	298 pph/km	241 pph/km	289 pph/km	287 pph/km	–	917 pph/kmclear advantage
Lift-system coverage	0.37×	0.48×	0.28×	0.20×	0.28×	0.23×	–	0.67×clear advantage
Terrain per lift	3.0 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	7.4 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	4.7 km/lift	0.6 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	-12°C	3°C	0°C	-2°C	1°C	9°C	2°C	1°C
Maximum temperature	-5°C	10°C	6°C	10°C	7°C	24°C	9°C	6°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–	–	family	family	–	–	–
Piste variety	–	slopes	slopes	slopes	slopes	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	offpiste	offpiste	–	–	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift network	lifts	–	lifts	–	lifts	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	restaurants	–	restaurants	restaurants	restaurants	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	apresski	–	apresski	–	–	–
Public transport	transit	transit	transit	–	–	transit	–	–
Best airport transfer	82 min	63 min	104 min	–	441 min	83 min	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	47 km/h transfer	166 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	–	19 km/h transfer	11 km/h transfer	–	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Hintertux

Hintertux

Resort overview

Hintertux

Chamonix

Breuil Cervinia

Crans sur Sierre

Saas

Brienz

Valsavarenche

Gluringen

Detailed comparison