The paper presents well-structured research with appropriate methods, results, and scientific soundness. The combined use of different-wavelength SAR, together with car-based SAR, is an important added value. However, some minor revisions are needed to be published, especially for the quality of the figures and some other minor issues that could be improved 

• General comments: 

Monte mater: EGMS, it could also be possible to also add the dataset 2019 - 2023 (or 2020-2024 if it will be published)  to have a long time series for comparison  

Brienz/Brinzauls: Maybe it is possible to compare the data for DIC/Lidar used in Manconi et al., 2024, as well? 

It is possible to resume in a table for each satellite and orbit the mean azimuth and incidence angle. 

A table or some consideration showing the max (theoretical) velocity (along LOS) that can be detected by each satellite (I suppose based on acquisition frequency and wavelength) could help visualise the different satellites' upper limits. 

For the PS density calculation, it would be better to show where the area is in which PS is calculated, and to include a land use map to better understand what is classified as forest and non-forest.  For the plot,  use the same scale  for A B and C, at least using log axis Y to evidence the different order of density from C to L  band

• Specific comments 

Line 133: collapse on 27 October 2009 (any reference) 

Line 194 :  as shown in Fig. 6  is 3 ?  

• Figures

Where possible, add the boundaries of DSGSD and landslide/, especially when interferograms cover the entire area. 

In some figures (e.g., 6), the aerial photo appears to have a black pixel; is it a shadow mask? If yes, add to the legend.

Figure 4 and others:  Please add scale and coordinates 

Figure 8:  Please  use the same scale of velocity displacement 

Figure 12:  move at the end of par 6.1

This manuscript describes an extensive comparison among DInSAR measurements obtained by C- and L- band satellite data for landslide monitoring in alpine regions. Data acquired by a car-borne SAR sensor are also presented, complementing the information obtained from satellites.

The paper is very clear in its concept and structure. Several experimental results support the conclusions that are clear.

I have some minor comments that I think could improve the manuscript.

a) Table 1-2: it is not clear how to identify Stripmap and ScanSAR data. Please, add this info here or in the corresponding appendix tables.

It would also be useful to indicate the mean look angle, which in mountainous regions could be in some case critical.

b) L312: do you mean 2024-2025? In any case, I would detail the temporal span: October 2024-June 2025.

c) In Fig4a-b, 6, 9, A2, B3, C4 some shadow/black areas are present but no information for their interpretation is provided. Please, explain.

d) Fig.5: I suppose Fig. 5 and Fig.4 shares the same view. However, in the case of Fig. 5, the background map is not useful for identifying the area because it is almost completely covered by the interferogram. Therefore, here, and also in general for all the other maps, please add the geographic coordinates to better localize the study area.

As a further suggestion, in Fig. 5b (and in Fig. 11a as well) please consider to make transparent the areas with no phase information, instead of representing them in black.

e) Fig 5a and Fig. 7: Please, explain why some part of the wrapped interferograms is masked out.

f) Fig 13a,c: SqueezeSAR -> SqueeSAR

g) Fig. 13d: Caption states GNSS pt. 5001 while panel shows GNSS pt. 800. Please, correct.

h) L486-487: probably "when a significant acceleration detected by the MTS was not recorded by ALOS-2 PALSAR-2"?

i) L535: I would mention the possibility to use the Pixel Offset approach, if applicable, that anyway has its own limitations.

j) L536-541: "purely satellite-based analysis". I agree with the main point raised by the authors and I also agree with the authors' final statement at lines 568-570. However, I would mention here that this statement is related to the present satellite landscape. Indeed, future SAR missions acquiring with increased repeat pass and/or from multiple look angles would improve the satellite detection capabilities, even if the use of ground sensors will be probably always required. 

In any case, having improved satellite constellations would allow us to optimize in situ monitoring resources.

k) Fig B2-B3: review the figure caption. It should be Val Canaria.