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

Chamonix is the strongest match 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. Breuil Cervinia is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

Chamonix

75/100
Why
  1. Chamonix is the strongest match 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. Breuil Cervinia is the strongest alternative. 4 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 12 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 142 cm.
AlternativeBreuil Cervinia
Main uncertaintyMost of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
Would change ifA material forecast shift or a different priority profile could change the ranking.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 12 h ago10.2 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Chamonix

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choice

Leads on 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.

Why Chamonix leads Breuil Cervinia Terrain fit +11.8 pts and Access +3.1 pts
Terrain fit +11.8Access +3.1Snow reliability -3.0Snow now -1.5
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeBreuil Cervinia

Main uncertaintyMost of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

What could change the resultIncrease snow weight from 24 to 88 and Dachstein Gletscher becomes the leading option.

Lead margin10.2pts

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 frontier4 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.

SnowDachstein Gletscher

Increase snow weight from 24 to 88 and Dachstein Gletscher becomes the leading option.

24 → 88
Family & valuePohorje

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 86 and Pohorje becomes the leading option.

12 → 86
Why Chamonix leads Breuil Cervinia · 10.2 pts
Lift system+4.9 pts
Terrain+3.6 pts
Access+3.1 pts
Snow-3.0 pts
Family & value+2.2 pts
Current opportunity-1.5 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 Decision74.6/100
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 109% 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

#2 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision64/100
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 Now25.022% weight Decision64.4/100
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.

Mountain snow100 cm 10.0 / 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 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.

Dachstein Gletscher

#3 · Dachstein Gletscher · Austria

Decision64/100
Fit73/100
Now8/100
Quality9.0/10
Now820 cm upperReliability9494/100Terrain6868/100Access6074 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.

Fit72.986% weight Now7.714% weight Decision64.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow94/100 · 37% evidence 22.5 / 24.0 pts
Terrain69/100 · 52% evidence 15.2 / 22.0 pts
Scale29/100 · 85% evidence 4.6 / 16.0 pts
Lift system92/100 · 8% evidence 12.9 / 14.0 pts
Access60/100 · 68% evidence 7.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 10.6 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 48%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow20 cm 2.9 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow3 cm 1.4 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow20 cm 2.5 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow20 cm 1.0 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useSnow-first trips · 80/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area4 km · 436 m verticalBest transfer74 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 mCalendar contextMountain snow is 73% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 68/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Exceptional reliability match · 94/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

The ski area is comparatively compact.

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.

Pohorje

#5 · Mariborsko Pohorje · Slovenia

Decision57/100
Fit57/100
Now0/100
Quality4.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2828/100Terrain6868/100
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.

Fit57.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision57.1/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow28/100 · 37% evidence 7.5 / 27.3 pts
Terrain61/100 · 52% evidence 15.3 / 25.0 pts
Scale69/100 · 100% evidence 12.6 / 18.2 pts
Lift system57/100 · 68% evidence 9.0 / 15.9 pts
Family & value94/100 · 28% evidence 12.8 / 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 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 reliabilityLowSki area35 km · 999 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 68/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 28/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Aalen

#6 · Aalen · Germany

Decision39/100
Fit39/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability1313/100Terrain4949/100
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.

Fit38.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision38.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow13/100 · 37% evidence 3.7 / 27.3 pts
Terrain43/100 · 44% evidence 10.6 / 25.0 pts
Scale20/100 · 100% evidence 3.6 / 18.2 pts
Lift system63/100 · 68% evidence 10.0 / 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 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 · 51/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area2 km · 170 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 49/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 13/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Rottweil

#7 · Rottweil · Germany

Decision2/100
Fit2/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability77/100Terrain00/100
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.

Fit2.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision2.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow7/100 · 36% evidence 2.1 / 32.4 pts
Terrain0/100 · 15% evidence 0.0 / 29.7 pts
Scale1/100 · 58% evidence 0.1 / 21.6 pts
Family & value0/100 · 18% evidence 0.0 / 16.2 pts
AccessNo data excluded
Lift systemNo data excluded

Data coverage: 23%

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-rounderSnow reliabilityLowSki area0 km · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 0/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 7/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Krefeld

#8 · · 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 4 days earlier
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
AttributeChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseDachstein GletscherDachstein GletscherSaasSaastalPohorjeMariborsko PohorjeAalenAalenRottweilRottweilKrefeldGermany
Assessment
Decision score 75/100clear advantage64/10064/10064/10057/10039/1002/100–
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage75/10073/10064/10057/10039/1002/100–
Current opportunity 29/10025/1008/1000/1000/1000/1000/100–
Overall quality 6.0/109.2/109.0/108.7/104.0/10–––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumLowMediumLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10076/100100/100clear advantage78/10026/10025/10010/100–
Typical daytime high 3°C-2°C-5°Cclear advantage1°C6°C5°C4°C–
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-7°C-12°Cclear advantage-6°C0°C-2°C-3°C–
Rating 8.1/108.1/106.8/107.4/10–4.4/10––
Area size class 150–250 km250+ km20 km or less100–150 km20–50 km20 km or less20km or less–
Ability profile advancedadvancedexpertadvancednovicenovice––
Price class highhighavghighlowlowlow–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km322 kmclear advantage4 km142 km35 km2 km0 km–
Lowest point 1,000 m1,562 m2,264 mclear advantage1,472 m328 m510 m––
Highest point 3,842 m3,899 m2,700 m3,573 m1,327 m680 m615 m–
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m436 m2,101 m999 m170 m––
Blue pistes 34%23%50%22%57%60%0%–
Red pistes 44%68%25%62%34%40%0%–
Black pistes 22%8%25%16%9%0%0%–
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%92%clear advantage–57%––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%21%clear advantage–0%––––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10074/10095/10084/10082/10097/100––
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage51/100–68/100––––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage6%–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+109% vs average · 92th percentileBelow typical-20% vs average · 23th percentileWell below typical-73% vs average · 3th percentile–––––
Valley snow versus typical –Below typical-41% vs average · 57th percentileWell above typical100th percentile–––––
Open slopes versus typical –Close to typical-21% vs average · 45th percentile––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm19 cm20 cm–––––
Mid-mountain snow 97 cmclear advantage68 cm20 cm–––––
Mountain snow 142 cmclear advantage100 cm20 cm–––––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm3 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm–
Snow quality –9.6/10––––––
Snow alert 0 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/km–289 pph/km498 pph/km725 pph/kmclear advantage––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.28×–0.28×0.37×0.40×––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift0.2 km/lift3.6 km/lift2.7 km/lift1.0 km/lift––
Weather
Minimum temperature 2°C-8°C-8°C1°C7°C5°C2°C7°C
Maximum temperature 9°C-5°C-4°C7°C11°C11°C10°C14°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –––family––––
Piste variety slopesslopes–slopes––––
Off-piste offpisteoffpiste––––––
Cross-country ––––––––
Lift network –lifts–lifts––––
Mountain restaurants –restaurants–restaurants––––
Après-ski –apresski–apresski––––
Public transport transittransittransit–––––
Best airport transfer 63 min104 min74 min441 min––––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer3 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer––––