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.

Selected10 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Tahko is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 28/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Harnosand is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 10 options have limited evidence coverage.

Recommended

Tahko

50/100

Why

Tahko is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 28/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Harnosand is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 10 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 17 h ago

Structural fit score: 50/100.

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

AlternativeHarnosand

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.

Open webcams Show on map Inspect forecast

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Tahko

Balanced all-rounderLow-regret choice

Leads on solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 28/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Tahko leads Harnosand Terrain fit +6.7 pts and Snow reliability +0.7 pts

Terrain fit +6.7Snow reliability +0.7

Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeHarnosand

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultIncrease terrain weight from 22 to 58 and Harnosand becomes the leading option.

Lead margin7.3pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence55%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier2 options

1 option is 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.

TerrainHarnosand

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 58 and Harnosand becomes the leading option.

22 → 58

Family & valueHarnosand

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 91 and Harnosand becomes the leading option.

12 → 91

Why Tahko leads Harnosand · 7.3 pts

Lift system+11.7 pts

Terrain-6.7 pts

Scale+4.4 pts

Family & value-2.7 pts

Snow+0.7 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.

Tahko

#1 · Tahko · Finland

Decision50/100

Fit50/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability2828/100Terrain5858/100

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.

Fit49.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision49.7/100

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

Terrain47/100 · 44% evidence 11.9 / 25.0 pts

Scale44/100 · 100% evidence 8.0 / 18.2 pts

Lift system74/100 · 68% evidence 11.7 / 15.9 pts

Family & value78/100 · 41% evidence 10.6 / 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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useFamily trips · 58/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area20 km · 200 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 58/100 — 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.

Harnosand

#2 · Härnösand · Sweden

Decision42/100

Fit42/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability2121/100Terrain5353/100

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.

Fit42.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision42.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow21/100 · 36% evidence 6.8 / 32.4 pts

Terrain63/100 · 28% evidence 18.6 / 29.7 pts

Scale17/100 · 58% evidence 3.6 / 21.6 pts

Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 13.3 / 16.2 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

Data coverage: 29%

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 useAdvanced skiing · 46/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area2 km · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong family usability; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 21/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Rehefeld Zaunhaus

#3 · Rehefeld Zaunhaus · Germany

Decision33/100

Fit33/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability1717/100Terrain3838/100

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.

Fit32.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision32.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow17/100 · 37% evidence 4.6 / 27.3 pts

Terrain33/100 · 44% evidence 8.3 / 25.0 pts

Scale19/100 · 100% evidence 3.4 / 18.2 pts

Lift system62/100 · 68% evidence 9.9 / 15.9 pts

Family & value46/100 · 41% evidence 6.2 / 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 typeLifts-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 38/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area2 km · 95 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 38/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 17/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Aarau

#4 · · Switzerland

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 for selected date

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.

Aurich

#5 · · Switzerland

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 dataNo current update

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.

Baden

#6 · · Switzerland

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 for selected date

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.

Budingen

#7 · · 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 dataNo current update

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.

Högsby

#8 · · Sweden

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 dataNo current update

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.

Rachowiec

#9 · · Poland

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 dataNo current update

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.

Vittjakk

#10 · · Sweden

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 for selected date

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.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	TahkoTahko	HarnosandHärnösand	Rehefeld ZaunhausRehefeld Zaunhaus	AarauSwitzerland	AurichSwitzerland	BadenSwitzerland	BudingenGermany	HögsbySweden	RachowiecPoland	VittjakkSweden
Assessment
Decision score	50/100clear advantage	42/100	33/100	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Structural Fit	50/100clear advantage	42/100	33/100	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100	0/100	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Overall quality	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	68/100clear advantage	49/100	22/100	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical daytime high	-3°Cclear advantage	1°C	4°C	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-8°Cclear advantage	-4°C	-1°C	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Rating	4.0/10	4.4/10	4.8/10clear advantage	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Area size class	20 km or less	20 km or less	20 km or less	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Ability profile	intermediate	advanced	advanced	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Price class	–	–	low	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	20 km	2 km	2 km	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lowest point	84 m	–	750 mclear advantage	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Highest point	284 m	168 m	845 mclear advantage	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Vertical range	200 m	–	95 m	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Blue pistes	50%	50%	17%	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Red pistes	40%	50%	83%	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Black pistes	10%clear advantage	0%	0%	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	86/100	100/100clear advantage	65/100	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
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	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain snow	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow quality	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	–	0 cm	0 cm	–	0 cm	–	–	–	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	853 pph/kmclear advantage	–	750 pph/km	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift-system coverage	0.38×	–	0.38×	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain per lift	1.3 km/lift	–	1.2 km/lift	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	6°C	–	5°C	11°C	–	10°C	–	–	–	0°C
Maximum temperature	9°C	–	8°C	16°C	–	19°C	–	–	–	4°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Piste variety	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Public transport	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

Compare ski resorts

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Tahko

Tahko

Resort overview

Tahko

Harnosand

Rehefeld Zaunhaus

Aarau

Aurich

Baden

Budingen

Högsby

Rachowiec

Vittjakk

Detailed comparison