Shape/Flex/Construction:
Both skis feature pretty similar constructions and rocker profiles.
They even have the same footprint on paper.
But these really are very different skis.
The Whitewalker is much stiffer than the JJ UL and features pinned noses and tails.
Both the tip and tail did have some give though, and I quite enjoyed buttering around on them.
The JJ UL is much softer all through the ski.
The JJ UL, by contrast, is below average on hardpack, even for a fat ski.
To be fair, most pow skis fit that description and that is even more true of lightweight skis.
Something which makes the only marginally heavier Whitewalker even more remarkable.
Jibbing:
Both of these skis are primarily freestyle tools.
The difference here is in the flex.
The Whitewalker, by contrast, is fairly stiff.
Both skis have a lot of tail rocker and land switch comfortably in deep snow.
Mixed snow/Pow/Freeride:
Performance away from the resort is another tale of contrasts.
The JJ UL is a floatier ski, more of a true pow ski.
The soft flex and wider shovels give the ski more total lift.
So when youre looking to bounce in and out of the soft stuff, they are the superior tool.
However, the second the snow gets heavy, cut up, or tracked out, the roles reverse.
Thus, its a much better ski for charging, dropping big features, landing jumps, etc.
And it goes sideways almost as well as the UL too, thanks to the pinned shape.
The only place it falls short by comparison is in terms of lift when bouncing around.
Pre-knee explosion, I could have considered skiing the Whitewalker on 50%+ of days.
Its hard to make a comment here other than no issue.
If youre a beginner or a very light human, maybe youd prefer the JJ UL.
But otherwise, the Whitewalker is an improved ski across the board.
Its better almost all the time and in almost all conditions.
The Whitewalker is one of the best skis Ive ever skied, simple as that.
