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.

Selected10 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.

10 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

Au Schoppernau is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 65/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Au Schoppernau

79/100
Why
  1. Au Schoppernau is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 65/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Chamonix is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.
Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago
  • Strong overall decision score (79/100).

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeChamonix
Main uncertaintySome 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.
Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago4.2 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Au Schoppernau

Advanced-terrain specialistEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Chamonix. strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 65/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Au Schoppernau leads Chamonix Terrain fit +6.9 pts and Snow reliability +0.9 pts
Terrain fit +6.9Snow now -3.9Snow reliability +0.9Access +0.2
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeChamonix

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultIncrease scale weight from 16 to 71 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

Lead margin4.2pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence53%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier5 options

3 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.

ScaleChamonix

Increase scale weight from 16 to 71 and Chamonix becomes the leading option.

16 → 71
Family & valueObermaiselstein

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 93 and Obermaiselstein becomes the leading option.

12 → 93
Why Au Schoppernau leads Chamonix · 4.2 pts
Lift system+4.3 pts
Current opportunity-3.9 pts
Terrain+2.6 pts
Snow+0.9 pts
Scale-0.7 pts
Family & value+0.7 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.

Au Schoppernau

#1 · Au Schoppernau · Austria

Decision79/100
Fit79/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6565/100Terrain8585/100Access7577 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.

Fit79.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision79.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow65/100 · 37% evidence 15.5 / 24.0 pts
Terrain87/100 · 44% evidence 19.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale81/100 · 85% evidence 12.9 / 16.0 pts
Lift system97/100 · 8% evidence 13.6 / 14.0 pts
Access75/100 · 68% evidence 9.0 / 12.0 pts
Family & value74/100 · 41% evidence 8.9 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 46%

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 typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 81/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area40 km · 1,240 m verticalBest transfer77 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 65/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Across the commonly available decision dimensions, Chamonix Valley is at least as strong and meaningfully better on one or more dimensions.

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 Decision74.8/100
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..

Breuil Cervinia

#3 · 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.

Fit75.479% weight Now22.021% 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

#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.

Grasgehren

#5 · Hornergruppe · Germany

Decision62/100
Fit62/100
Now0/100
Quality6.6/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3838/100Terrain7171/100
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.

Fit61.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision61.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow38/100 · 73% evidence 10.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain58/100 · 80% evidence 14.6 / 25.0 pts
Scale58/100 · 85% evidence 10.5 / 18.2 pts
Lift system96/100 · 8% evidence 15.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value81/100 · 41% evidence 11.0 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 55%

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 · 68/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area18 km · 840 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Current 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 · 38/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Obermaiselstein

#6 · Obermaiselstein · Germany

Decision56/100
Fit56/100
Now0/100
Quality6.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3838/100Terrain5858/100Access8449 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.

Fit56.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision56.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow38/100 · 73% evidence 10.7 / 27.9 pts
Terrain48/100 · 80% evidence 12.2 / 25.6 pts
Scale41/100 · 85% evidence 7.6 / 18.6 pts
Access84/100 · 68% evidence 11.7 / 14.0 pts
Family & value99/100 · 28% evidence 13.9 / 14.0 pts
Lift systemNo data excluded

Data coverage: 60%

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 · 70/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area12 km · 391 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer49 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 38/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Gerardmer

#7 · Gerardmer · France

Decision48/100
Fit48/100
Now0/100
Quality3.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2323/100Terrain5656/100Access57104 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.

Fit47.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision47.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow23/100 · 37% evidence 5.4 / 24.0 pts
Terrain43/100 · 52% evidence 9.5 / 22.0 pts
Scale57/100 · 100% evidence 9.2 / 16.0 pts
Lift system50/100 · 68% evidence 6.9 / 14.0 pts
Access57/100 · 68% evidence 6.9 / 12.0 pts
Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 10.0 / 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 useFamily trips · 56/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area35 km · 370 m verticalBest transfer104 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 56/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 23/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Egg schetteregg

#8 · Schetteregg · Austria

Decision48/100
Fit48/100
Now0/100
Quality4.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3232/100Terrain5454/100
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.

Fit47.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision47.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow32/100 · 37% evidence 8.6 / 27.3 pts
Terrain50/100 · 52% evidence 12.5 / 25.0 pts
Scale37/100 · 100% evidence 6.7 / 18.2 pts
Lift system62/100 · 68% evidence 9.9 / 15.9 pts
Family & value74/100 · 41% evidence 10.0 / 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-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 55/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area11 km · 255 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 32/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Finkennest

#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 dataUpdated for selected date
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.

Roggwil

#10 · · Switzerland

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 dataUpdated for selected date
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
AttributeAu SchoppernauAu SchoppernauChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalGrasgehrenHornergruppeObermaiselsteinObermaiselsteinGerardmerGerardmerEgg schettereggSchettereggFinkennestGermanyRoggwilSwitzerland
Assessment
Decision score 79/100clear advantage75/10064/10064/10062/10056/10048/10048/100––
Structural Fit 79/10082/10075/10064/10062/10056/10048/10048/100––
Current opportunity 0/10029/100clear advantage22/1000/1000/1000/1000/1000/100––
Overall quality –6.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/106.6/106.0/103.5/104.5/10––
Recommendation confidence LowMediumMediumMediumLowMediumMediumLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 70/10068/10076/10078/10045/10025/10021/10031/100––
Typical daytime high 0°C3°C-2°Cclear advantage1°C4°C3°C4°C6°C––
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-4°C-7°C-6°C-3°C-5°C0°C-2°C––
Rating 7.0/108.1/108.1/107.4/106.8/10–6.5/106.7/10––
Area size class 20–50 km150–250 km250+ km100–150 km20 km or less20 km or less20–50 km20 km or less––
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedadvancedintermediatenovicenoviceadvanced––
Price class avghighhighhighlowavglowlow––
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 40 km175 km322 kmclear advantage142 km18 km12 km35 km11 km––
Lowest point 850 m1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m760 m1,400 m770 m1,070 m––
Highest point 2,090 m3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m1,600 m1,791 m1,140 m1,325 m––
Vertical range 1,240 m2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m840 m391 m370 m255 m––
Blue pistes 33%34%23%22%40%58%60%36%––
Red pistes 45%44%68%62%39%42%34%55%––
Black pistes 23%22%8%16%21%0%6%9%––
Terrain above 2,000 m –55%92%clear advantage57%0%0%––––
Terrain above 3,000 m –0%21%clear advantage0%0%0%––––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10097/10074/10084/10097/10098/10076/10083/100––
Slope-angle diversity –86/100clear advantage51/10068/10017/10032/100––––
Very/extremely steep terrain –21%clear advantage6%2%0%1%––––
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 percentileWell 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 cm19 cm–––––––
Mid-mountain snow –99 cmclear advantage53 cm–––––––
Mountain snow –145 cmclear advantage75 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 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––7%–––––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km –556 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km––544 pph/km786 pph/kmclear advantage––
Lift-system coverage –0.48×clear advantage0.28×0.28×––0.24×0.28×––
Terrain per lift 1.0 km/lift2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift0.5 km/lift–1.8 km/lift1.4 km/lift––
Weather
Minimum temperature 4°C4°C1°C1°C2°C4°C5°C3°C4°C5°C
Maximum temperature 11°C11°C9°C6°C10°C11°C11°C16°C10°C11°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –––family––––––
Piste variety –slopesslopesslopes––––––
Off-piste –offpisteoffpiste–––––––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network ––liftslifts––––––
Mountain restaurants ––restaurantsrestaurants––––––
Après-ski ––apresskiapresski––––––
Public transport –transittransit–transittransit––––
Best airport transfer 77 min63 min104 min441 min–49 min104 min–––
Skiing per transfer hour 31 km/h transfer166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer–15 km/h transfer20 km/h transfer–––