Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Hochjoch is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 62/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Bielerhohe is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Recommended

Hochjoch

75/100

Why

Hochjoch is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 62/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Bielerhohe is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 15 h ago

Structural fit score: 75/100.

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

AlternativeBielerhohe

Main uncertaintyMost of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

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

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Hochjoch

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choice

Leads on strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 62/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Hochjoch leads Bielerhohe Terrain fit +27.2 pts

Terrain fit +27.2Snow reliability -0.7

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

Strongest alternativeBielerhohe

Main uncertaintyMost of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

What could change the resultThe recommendation remains first under the tested nearby priority shifts in the available evidence.

Lead margin26.7pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence70%

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.

Why Hochjoch leads Bielerhohe · 26.7 pts

Terrain+15.1 pts

Scale+14.8 pts

Lift system-1.9 pts

Family & value-0.8 pts

Snow-0.7 pts

Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.

Priority sensitivity

The leading resort remains first under moderate one-criterion weighting shifts in the available evidence.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

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

Hochjoch

#1 · Silvretta Montafon · Austria

Decision75/100

Fit75/100

Now0/100

Quality5.8/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6262/100Terrain7979/100

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.

Fit74.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision74.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow62/100 · 73% evidence 16.9 / 27.3 pts

Terrain78/100 · 80% evidence 19.6 / 25.0 pts

Scale96/100 · 100% evidence 17.5 / 18.2 pts

Lift system59/100 · 68% evidence 9.3 / 15.9 pts

Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.3 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 66%

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 typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 77/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area142 km · 1,730 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m32%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 62/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Bielerhohe

#2 · Silvretta Bielerhohe im Montafon · Austria

Decision48/100

Fit48/100

Now0/100

Quality6.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6464/100Terrain4242/100

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.

Fit48.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision48.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow64/100 · 37% evidence 17.6 / 27.3 pts

Terrain18/100 · 39% evidence 4.5 / 25.0 pts

Scale15/100 · 85% evidence 2.7 / 18.2 pts

Lift system70/100 · 68% evidence 11.2 / 15.9 pts

Family & value89/100 · 31% evidence 12.1 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 44%

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 useFamily trips · 63/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area2 km · 120 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 42/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Piz Buin

#3 · · Austria

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	HochjochSilvretta Montafon	BielerhoheSilvretta Bielerhohe im Montafon	Piz BuinAustria
Assessment
Decision score	75/100clear advantage	48/100	–
Structural Fit	75/100clear advantage	48/100	–
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100	–
Overall quality	5.8/10	6.5/10clear advantage	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	67/100	62/100	–
Typical daytime high	2°C	2°C	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-6°C	-5°C	–
Rating	7.0/10	7.4/10clear advantage	–
Area size class	100–150 km	20 km or less	–
Ability profile	intermediate	novice	–
Price class	avg	avg	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	142 kmclear advantage	2 km	–
Lowest point	700 m	1,910 mclear advantage	–
Highest point	2,430 mclear advantage	2,030 m	–
Vertical range	1,730 mclear advantage	120 m	–
Blue pistes	42%	100%	–
Red pistes	35%	0%	–
Black pistes	22%clear advantage	0%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	32%	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	97/100	–	–
Slope-angle diversity	56/100	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	5%	–	–
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	475 pph/km	670 pph/kmclear advantage	–
Lift-system coverage	0.29×	1.05×clear advantage	–
Terrain per lift	4.1 km/lift	1.0 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	3°C	5°C	-5°C
Maximum temperature	5°C	8°C	3°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–	–
Piste variety	slopes	–	–
Off-piste	offpiste	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–
Lift network	lifts	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	–
Après-ski	apresski	–	–
Public transport	transit	–	–
Best airport transfer	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	–	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Hochjoch

Hochjoch

Resort overview

Hochjoch

Bielerhohe

Piz Buin

Detailed comparison