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.

Selected7 of 10

ProfileBalanced

ModeStructural

Decision horizon

Recommendation

Decision summary

Harnosand is the strongest match because of 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. Rehefeld Zaunhaus is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 7 options have limited evidence coverage.

Recommendation limited by evidence

Harnosand

42/100

Why

Harnosand is the strongest match because of 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. Rehefeld Zaunhaus is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 7 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 17 h ago

Structural fit score: 42/100.

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

AlternativeRehefeld Zaunhaus

Main uncertaintyLimited evidence is available. Missing enriched fields are omitted rather than scored as zero.

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

Harnosand

Family progression baseLow-regret choiceLimited evidence

Leads on 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.

Why Harnosand leads Rehefeld Zaunhaus Terrain fit +7.7 pts and Snow reliability +2.2 pts

Terrain fit +7.7Snow reliability +2.2

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

Strongest alternativeRehefeld Zaunhaus

Main uncertaintyLimited evidence is available. Missing enriched fields are omitted rather than scored as zero.

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 58 and Rehefeld Zaunhaus becomes the leading option.

Lead margin9.9pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence38%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier2 options

No selected option is clearly dominated on the shared evidence.

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.

Lift systemRehefeld Zaunhaus

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 58 and Rehefeld Zaunhaus becomes the leading option.

14 → 58

Why Harnosand leads Rehefeld Zaunhaus · 9.9 pts

Terrain+10.3 pts

Lift system-9.9 pts

Family & value+7.1 pts

Snow+2.2 pts

Scale+0.2 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.

Harnosand

#1 · 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

#2 · 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

#3 · · 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

#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 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

#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 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

#6 · · 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

#7 · · 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.

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	HarnosandHärnösand	Rehefeld ZaunhausRehefeld Zaunhaus	AarauSwitzerland	AurichSwitzerland	BadenSwitzerland	BudingenGermany	HögsbySweden
Assessment
Decision score	42/100clear advantage	33/100	–	–	–	–	–
Structural Fit	42/100clear advantage	33/100	–	–	–	–	–
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100	–	–	–	–	–
Overall quality	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	49/100clear advantage	22/100	–	–	–	–	–
Typical daytime high	1°Cclear advantage	4°C	–	–	–	–	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°Cclear advantage	-1°C	–	–	–	–	–
Rating	4.4/10	4.8/10clear advantage	–	–	–	–	–
Area size class	20 km or less	20 km or less	–	–	–	–	–
Ability profile	advanced	advanced	–	–	–	–	–
Price class	–	low	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	2 km	2 km	–	–	–	–	–
Lowest point	–	750 m	–	–	–	–	–
Highest point	168 m	845 mclear advantage	–	–	–	–	–
Vertical range	–	95 m	–	–	–	–	–
Blue pistes	50%	17%	–	–	–	–	–
Red pistes	50%	83%	–	–	–	–	–
Black pistes	0%	0%	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	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	–	–	–	–	–
Snow quality	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Snow alert	–	0 cm	0 cm	–	0 cm	–	–
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	750 pph/km	–	–	–	–	–
Lift-system coverage	–	0.38×	–	–	–	–	–
Terrain per lift	–	1.2 km/lift	–	–	–	–	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	–	5°C	11°C	–	10°C	–	–
Maximum temperature	–	8°C	16°C	–	19°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

Harnosand

Harnosand

Resort overview

Harnosand

Rehefeld Zaunhaus

Aarau

Aurich

Baden

Budingen

Högsby

Detailed comparison