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.

Selected7 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. Obergurgl is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Chamonix

82/100

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. Obergurgl is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 22 min ago

Strong overall decision score (82/100).

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

AlternativeObergurgl

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Obergurgl 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 Obergurgl. 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 Obergurgl Terrain fit +5.5 pts and Access +1.8 pts

Snow reliability -5.8Terrain fit +5.5Access +1.8

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

Strongest alternativeObergurgl

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 8 and Obergurgl becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.5pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence75%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier5 options

2 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 systemObergurgl

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 8 and Obergurgl becomes the leading option.

14 → 8

SnowObergurgl

Increase snow weight from 24 to 31 and Obergurgl becomes the leading option.

24 → 31

AccessObergurgl

Reduce access weight from 12 to 1 and Obergurgl becomes the leading option.

12 → 1

Family & valueObergurgl

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 26 and Obergurgl becomes the leading option.

12 → 26

Why Chamonix leads Obergurgl · 1.5 pts

Snow-5.8 pts

Lift system+4.2 pts

Access+1.8 pts

Terrain+1.6 pts

Family & value-1.4 pts

Scale+1.1 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

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..

Obergurgl

#2 · Obergurgl Hochgurgl · Austria

Decision80/100

Fit80/100

Now–/100

Quality9.2/10

Reliability9494/100Terrain7777/100Access7091 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.

Fit80.4100% weight Now–0% weight Decision80.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow94/100 · 73% evidence 22.7 / 24.0 pts

Terrain79/100 · 80% evidence 17.4 / 22.0 pts

Scale91/100 · 85% evidence 14.6 / 16.0 pts

Lift system47/100 · 68% evidence 6.5 / 14.0 pts

Access70/100 · 68% evidence 8.4 / 12.0 pts

Family & value91/100 · 41% evidence 10.9 / 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 useSnow-first trips · 85/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area112 km · 1,237 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m97%Best transfer91 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 77/100 — 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.

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.

Luchon Superbagneres

#4 · Luchon Superbagneres · France

Decision66/100

Fit66/100

Now–/100

Quality6.8/10

Reliability6464/100Terrain6767/100

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.

Fit66.4100% weight Now–0% weight Decision66.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow64/100 · 37% evidence 17.4 / 27.3 pts

Terrain67/100 · 52% evidence 16.8 / 25.0 pts

Scale62/100 · 100% evidence 11.3 / 18.2 pts

Lift system58/100 · 68% evidence 9.1 / 15.9 pts

Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 11.8 / 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 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 · 71/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area32 km · 660 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 67/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Scale trails the selected-set median by 29 points.

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.

Crissolo

#6 · Crissolo Monviso · Italy

Decision55/100

Fit55/100

Now–/100

Quality6.5/10

Reliability5555/100Terrain5757/100Access4692 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.

Fit55.0100% weight Now–0% weight Decision55.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow55/100 · 73% evidence 13.1 / 24.0 pts

Terrain47/100 · 67% evidence 10.3 / 22.0 pts

Scale23/100 · 100% evidence 3.7 / 16.0 pts

Lift system90/100 · 68% evidence 12.5 / 14.0 pts

Access46/100 · 68% evidence 5.5 / 12.0 pts

Family & value82/100 · 31% evidence 9.8 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 70%

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 · 63/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area0 km · 467 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m38%Best transfer92 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 57/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 55/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

The ski area is comparatively compact.

Goulier

#7 · Goulier · France

Decision46/100

Fit46/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Reliability4444/100Terrain4747/100

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.

Fit46.2100% weight Now–0% weight Decision46.2/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow44/100 · 37% evidence 12.1 / 27.3 pts

Terrain44/100 · 44% evidence 10.9 / 25.0 pts

Scale31/100 · 100% evidence 5.6 / 18.2 pts

Lift system41/100 · 68% evidence 6.5 / 15.9 pts

Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 11.1 / 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 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 reliabilityLowSki area6 km · 327 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 47/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience 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	ChamonixChamonix Valley	ObergurglObergurgl Hochgurgl	Breuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski Paradise	Luchon SuperbagneresLuchon Superbagneres	SaasSaastal	CrissoloCrissolo Monviso	GoulierGoulier
Assessment
Decision score	82/100	80/100	75/100	66/100	64/100	55/100	46/100
Structural Fit	82/100	80/100	75/100	66/100	64/100	55/100	46/100
Current opportunity	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Overall quality	6.0/10	9.2/10	9.2/10	6.8/10	8.7/10	6.5/10	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	68/100	94/100clear advantage	76/100	59/100	78/100	57/100	30/100
Typical daytime high	3°C	-3°C	-2°C	6°C	1°C	3°C	8°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-9°C	-7°C	-1°C	-6°C	-5°C	2°C
Rating	8.1/10	7.8/10	8.1/10	6.2/10	7.4/10	5.6/10	4.8/10
Area size class	150–250 km	100–150 km	250+ km	20–50 km	100–150 km	20 km or less	20 km or less
Ability profile	advanced	intermediate	advanced	intermediate	advanced	novice	novice
Price class	high	avg	high	low	high	avg	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	175 km	112 km	322 kmclear advantage	32 km	142 km	0 km	6 km
Lowest point	1,000 m	1,793 mclear advantage	1,562 m	1,465 m	1,472 m	1,333 m	1,480 m
Highest point	3,842 m	3,030 m	3,899 m	2,125 m	3,573 m	1,800 m	1,807 m
Vertical range	2,842 mclear advantage	1,237 m	2,337 m	660 m	2,101 m	467 m	327 m
Blue pistes	34%	54%	23%	50%	22%	100%	67%
Red pistes	44%	30%	68%	31%	62%	0%	33%
Black pistes	22%	17%	8%	19%	16%	0%	0%
Terrain above 2,000 m	55%	97%	92%	–	57%	38%	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	1%	21%clear advantage	–	0%	0%	–
Piste-mix diversity	97/100	90/100	74/100	93/100	84/100	–	92/100
Slope-angle diversity	86/100clear advantage	69/100	51/100	–	68/100	59/100	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	21%clear advantage	10%	6%	–	2%	8%	–
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
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	556 pph/km	407 pph/km	298 pph/km	501 pph/km	289 pph/km	11,500 pph/kmclear advantage	419 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	0.48×	0.25×	0.28×	0.39×	0.28×	11.00×clear advantage	0.32×
Terrain per lift	2.5 km/lift	4.5 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	2.9 km/lift	3.6 km/lift	0.1 km/lift	1.5 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	3°C	-3°C	0°C	1°C	1°C	5°C	5°C
Maximum temperature	10°C	5°C	6°C	8°C	7°C	8°C	12°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	family	–	–	family	–	–
Piste variety	slopes	slopes	slopes	–	slopes	–	–
Off-piste	offpiste	–	offpiste	–	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	lifts	–	lifts	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	restaurants	restaurants	–	restaurants	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	apresski	–	apresski	–	–
Public transport	transit	–	transit	–	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	63 minclear advantage	91 min	104 min	–	441 min	92 min	–
Skiing per transfer hour	166 km/h transfer	74 km/h transfer	186 km/h transfer	–	19 km/h transfer	0 km/h transfer	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Chamonix

Chamonix

Resort overview

Chamonix

Obergurgl

Breuil Cervinia

Luchon Superbagneres

Saas

Crissolo

Goulier

Detailed comparison