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

Pas de la Casa narrowly leads because of good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 76/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Andorra is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Effectively tied

Pas de la Casa

75/100
Why
  1. Pas de la Casa narrowly leads because of good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 76/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Andorra is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.
Limited evidenceUpdated 28 min ago
  • Structural fit score: 75/100.

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

AlternativeAndorra
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Andorra is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists. Some selected resorts share the same Grand Valira ski-area profile.
Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.
Limited evidenceUpdated 28 min ago0.0 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Pas de la Casa

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Andorra. good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 76/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.

Strongest alternativeAndorra

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Andorra is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists. Some selected resorts share the same Grand Valira ski-area profile.

What could change the resultIf snow receives about 50% more weight, Andorra becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.0pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence57%

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.

Priority sensitivity · what can change the winner?
SnowAndorra

If snow receives about 50% more weight, Andorra becomes the leading option.

TerrainAndorra

If terrain receives about 50% more weight, Andorra becomes the leading option.

ScaleAndorra

If scale receives about 50% more weight, Andorra becomes the leading option.

Resort overview

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

Shared ski-area data: Pas de la Casa, Andorra share Grand Valira. Permanent profile values are identical; current local observations may differ.

Pas de la Casa

#1 · Grand Valira · Andorra

Decision75/100
Fit75/100
Now–/100
Quality6.4/10
Reliability7676/100Terrain7474/100
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.

Fit74.6100% weight Now–0% weight Decision74.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow76/100 · 37% evidence 20.6 / 27.3 pts
Terrain71/100 · 52% evidence 17.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale82/100 · 100% evidence 14.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system58/100 · 68% evidence 9.2 / 15.9 pts
Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 12.2 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 77/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area215 km · 930 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated 1 day earlierPeer group150–299 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 76/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Andorra

#2 · Grand Valira · Andorra

Decision75/100
Fit75/100
Now–/100
Quality6.4/10
Reliability7676/100Terrain7474/100
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.

Fit74.6100% weight Now–0% weight Decision74.6/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow76/100 · 37% evidence 20.6 / 27.3 pts
Terrain71/100 · 52% evidence 17.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale82/100 · 100% evidence 14.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system58/100 · 68% evidence 9.2 / 15.9 pts
Family & value89/100 · 41% evidence 12.2 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 77/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area215 km · 930 m verticalCurrent dataNo current updatePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 74/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 76/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Arcalis

#3 · Arcalis · Andorra

Decision70/100
Fit70/100
Now–/100
Quality7.0/10
Reliability8181/100Terrain6666/100
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.

Fit69.9100% weight Now–0% weight Decision69.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow81/100 · 37% evidence 22.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain64/100 · 52% evidence 15.9 / 25.0 pts
Scale61/100 · 100% evidence 11.1 / 18.2 pts
Lift system61/100 · 68% evidence 9.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.3 / 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 useSnow-first trips · 74/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area30 km · 685 m verticalCurrent dataNo current updatePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Strong reliability match · 81/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Scale trails the selected-set median by 21 points.

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
AttributePas de la CasaGrand ValiraAndorraGrand ValiraArcalisArcalis
Assessment
Decision score 75/10075/10070/100
Structural Fit 75/10075/10070/100
Current opportunity –––
Overall quality 6.4/10Shared ski-area value7.0/10clear advantage
Recommendation confidence LowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 59/100Shared ski-area value71/100clear advantage
Typical daytime high 4°CShared ski-area value5°C
Typical snow/freezing level –Shared ski-area value–
Typical overnight low -2°CShared ski-area value-2°C
Rating 8.1/10Shared ski-area value7.5/10
Area size class 150–250 kmShared ski-area value20–50 km
Ability profile intermediateShared ski-area valueadvanced
Price class lowShared ski-area valuelow
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 215 kmShared ski-area value30 km
Lowest point 1,710 mShared ski-area value1,940 mclear advantage
Highest point 2,640 mShared ski-area value2,625 m
Vertical range 930 mShared ski-area value685 m
Blue pistes 47%Shared ski-area value43%
Red pistes 38%Shared ski-area value47%
Black pistes 15%Shared ski-area value10%
Terrain above 2,000 m –Shared ski-area value–
Terrain above 3,000 m –Shared ski-area value–
Piste-mix diversity 92/100Shared ski-area value86/100
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 –––
Valley snow versus typical –––
Open slopes versus typical –––
Current snow
Valley snow –––
Mid-mountain snow –––
Mountain snow –––
Fresh snow –––
Snow quality –––
Snow alert 1 cm––
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –––
Open lifts –––
Lift capacity per piste km 538 pph/kmShared ski-area value575 pph/km
Lift-system coverage 0.25×Shared ski-area value0.34×clear advantage
Terrain per lift 2.9 km/liftShared ski-area value2.0 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 4°C––
Maximum temperature 9°C––
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability –Shared ski-area valuefamily
Piste variety slopesShared ski-area value–
Off-piste –Shared ski-area value–
Cross-country –Shared ski-area value–
Lift network liftsShared ski-area valuelifts
Mountain restaurants restaurantsShared ski-area value–
Après-ski –Shared ski-area value–
Public transport –Shared ski-area value–
Best airport transfer –––
Skiing per transfer hour –––