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.

Selected3 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.

3 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

Schnalstaler Gletscher is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 73/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 96/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Schnalstal is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

Schnalstaler Gletscher

74/100
Why
  1. Schnalstaler Gletscher is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 73/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 96/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Schnalstal is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 16 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (79/100).
AlternativeSchnalstal
Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists. Some selected resorts share the same Schnalstaler Gletscher ski-area profile.
Would change ifA material forecast shift or a different priority profile could change the ranking.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 16 h ago9.1 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Schnalstaler Gletscher

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choice

Leads on good terrain match · 73/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 96/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Schnalstaler Gletscher leads Schnalstal Terrain fit +8.6 pts and Snow reliability +4.2 pts
Terrain fit +8.6Access -4.3Snow reliability +4.2Snow now +0.7
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeSchnalstal

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists. Some selected resorts share the same Schnalstaler Gletscher ski-area profile.

What could change the resultThe recommendation remains first under the tested nearby priority shifts in the available evidence.

Lead margin9.1pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence54%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier3 options

No selected option is clearly dominated on the shared evidence.

Why Schnalstaler Gletscher leads Schnalstal · 9.1 pts
Access-4.3 pts
Snow+4.2 pts
Terrain+3.6 pts
Scale+2.4 pts
Family & value+1.5 pts
Lift system+1.1 pts

Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.

Priority sensitivity

The leading resort remains first under moderate one-criterion weighting shifts in the available evidence.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

Trip match is profile-specific. Expand the calculation to see exactly how each score is built.

Shared ski-area data: Schnalstaler Gletscher, Schnalstal share Schnalstaler Gletscher. Permanent profile values are identical; current local observations may differ.

Schnalstaler Gletscher

#1 · Schnalstaler Gletscher · Italy

Decision74/100
Fit79/100
Now11/100
Quality9.0/10
Now1150 cm upperReliability9696/100Terrain7373/100
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.

Fit79.492% weight Now10.98% weight Decision73.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow96/100 · 37% evidence 26.2 / 27.3 pts
Terrain91/100 · 52% evidence 22.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale81/100 · 85% evidence 14.8 / 18.2 pts
Lift system40/100 · 68% evidence 6.4 / 15.9 pts
Family & value67/100 · 41% evidence 9.2 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 48%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow50 cm 10.9 / 65.2 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 34.8 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 46%

Destination typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useSnow-first trips · 85/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area42 km · 1,201 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 73/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Exceptional reliability match · 96/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Schnalstal

#2 · Schnalstaler Gletscher · Italy

Decision65/100
Fit75/100
Now1/100
Quality9.0/10
Now16 cm upperReliability9696/100Terrain7373/100Access42133 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.

Fit74.986% weight Now1.014% weight Decision64.8/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow96/100 · 37% evidence 23.0 / 24.0 pts
Terrain91/100 · 52% evidence 20.1 / 22.0 pts
Scale81/100 · 85% evidence 13.0 / 16.0 pts
Lift system40/100 · 68% evidence 5.6 / 14.0 pts
Access42/100 · 68% evidence 5.0 / 12.0 pts
Family & value67/100 · 41% evidence 8.1 / 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.

Mountain snow6 cm 0.9 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow4 cm 0.2 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useSnow-first trips · 82/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area42 km · 1,201 m verticalBest transfer133 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 86% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 73/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Exceptional reliability match · 96/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Maseben

#3 · Maseben · Italy

Decision45/100
Fit45/100
Now0/100
Quality6.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7373/100Terrain4242/100Access3187 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.

Fit44.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision44.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow73/100 · 37% evidence 17.5 / 24.0 pts
Terrain53/100 · 52% evidence 11.7 / 22.0 pts
Scale32/100 · 100% evidence 5.2 / 16.0 pts
Lift system1/100 · 68% evidence 0.2 / 14.0 pts
Access3/100 · 68% evidence 0.4 / 12.0 pts
Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 9.9 / 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 useSnow-first trips · 55/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area6 km · 408 m verticalBest transfer187 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 42/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 73/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

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
AttributeSchnalstaler GletscherSchnalstaler GletscherSchnalstalSchnalstaler GletscherMasebenMaseben
Assessment
Decision score 74/100clear advantage65/10045/100
Structural Fit 79/100clear advantage75/10045/100
Current opportunity 11/100clear advantage1/1000/100
Overall quality 9.0/10Shared ski-area value6.0/10
Recommendation confidence LowMediumMedium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 95/100Shared ski-area value71/100
Typical daytime high -2°CShared ski-area value3°C
Typical snow/freezing level –Shared ski-area value–
Typical overnight low -7°CShared ski-area value-5°C
Rating 7.1/10Shared ski-area value4.6/10
Area size class 20–50 kmShared ski-area value20 km or less
Ability profile expertShared ski-area valueadvanced
Price class lowShared ski-area valueavg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 42 kmShared ski-area value6 km
Lowest point 2,011 mShared ski-area value1,858 m
Highest point 3,212 mShared ski-area value2,266 m
Vertical range 1,201 mShared ski-area value408 m
Blue pistes 24%Shared ski-area value50%
Red pistes 43%Shared ski-area value50%
Black pistes 33%Shared ski-area value0%
Terrain above 2,000 m –Shared ski-area value–
Terrain above 3,000 m –Shared ski-area value–
Piste-mix diversity 97/100Shared ski-area value100/100
Slope-angle diversity –Shared ski-area value–
Very/extremely steep terrain –Shared ski-area value–
Historical context
Historical snow resilience –Shared ski-area value–
Typical early-winter mountain depth –Shared ski-area value–
Typical core-winter mountain depth –Shared ski-area value–
Typical late-winter mountain depth –Shared ski-area value–
Snow consistency –Shared ski-area value–
Late-winter retention –Shared ski-area value–
Lower-mountain retention –Shared ski-area value–
Warm-winter resilience –Shared ski-area value–
Mountain snow versus typical –Well below typical-86% vs average · 0th percentile–
Valley snow versus typical –Close to typical-100% vs average · 0th percentile–
Open slopes versus typical –––
Current snow
Valley snow –0 cm–
Mid-mountain snow –4 cm–
Mountain snow 50 cmclear advantage6 cm–
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality –––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––
Open lifts –––
Lift capacity per piste km 353 pph/kmShared ski-area value78 pph/km
Lift-system coverage 0.31×Shared ski-area value0.10×
Terrain per lift 3.8 km/liftShared ski-area value5.8 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 0°C5°C5°C
Maximum temperature 3°C12°C16°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –Shared ski-area value–
Piste variety –Shared ski-area value–
Off-piste –Shared ski-area value–
Cross-country –Shared ski-area value–
Lift network –Shared ski-area value–
Mountain restaurants restaurantsShared ski-area value–
Après-ski –Shared ski-area value–
Public transport –Shared ski-area value–
Best airport transfer –133 minclear advantage187 min
Skiing per transfer hour –19 km/h transfer2 km/h transfer