Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Pralognan La Vanoise narrowly leads because of good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Wald is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Effectively tied

Pralognan La Vanoise

65/100

Why

Pralognan La Vanoise narrowly leads because of good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Wald is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago

Structural fit score: 65/100.

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeWald

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Wald is small. Most 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

Pralognan La Vanoise

Terrain-led destinationLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Wald. good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Pralognan La Vanoise leads Wald Access +7.0 pts

Access +7.0Terrain fit -5.8Snow reliability -1.1

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

Strongest alternativeWald

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Wald is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 11 and Wald becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.4pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.

Evidence confidence77%

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 systemWald

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 11 and Wald becomes the leading option.

14 → 11

Family & valueWald

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 15 and Wald becomes the leading option.

12 → 15

ScaleWald

Increase scale weight from 16 to 19 and Wald becomes the leading option.

16 → 19

TerrainWald

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 17 and Wald becomes the leading option.

22 → 17

Why Pralognan La Vanoise leads Wald · 0.4 pts

Access+7.0 pts

Scale-4.0 pts

Family & value-3.0 pts

Snow-1.1 pts

Lift system+1.1 pts

Terrain+0.1 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.

Pralognan La Vanoise

#1 · Pralognan · France

Decision65/100

Fit65/100

Now0/100

Quality9.2/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6464/100Terrain6666/100Access5898 min

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.

Fit64.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision64.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow64/100 · 73% evidence 15.3 / 24.0 pts

Terrain76/100 · 80% evidence 16.7 / 22.0 pts

Scale63/100 · 100% evidence 10.1 / 16.0 pts

Lift system55/100 · 68% evidence 7.7 / 14.0 pts

Access58/100 · 68% evidence 7.0 / 12.0 pts

Family & value63/100 · 41% evidence 7.5 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 74%

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 typeTerrain-led destinationBest useAdvanced skiing · 68/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area26 km · 945 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m29%Best transfer98 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Wald

#2 · Sonnenkopf · Switzerland

Decision64/100

Fit64/100

Now0/100

Quality6.8/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6060/100Terrain6666/100

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.

Fit64.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision64.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow60/100 · 73% evidence 16.4 / 27.3 pts

Terrain67/100 · 80% evidence 16.6 / 25.0 pts

Scale77/100 · 100% evidence 14.1 / 18.2 pts

Lift system41/100 · 68% evidence 6.6 / 15.9 pts

Family & value77/100 · 41% evidence 10.5 / 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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useFamily trips · 65/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area30 km · 1,300 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m25%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 66/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 60/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

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	Pralognan La VanoisePralognan	WaldSonnenkopf
Assessment
Decision score	65/100	64/100
Structural Fit	65/100	64/100
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100
Overall quality	9.2/10clear advantage	6.8/10
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	76/100clear advantage	64/100
Typical daytime high	1°Cclear advantage	3°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–
Typical overnight low	-6°C	-4°C
Rating	6.6/10	6.7/10
Area size class	20–50 km	20–50 km
Ability profile	advanced	advanced
Price class	low	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	26 km	30 km
Lowest point	1,410 mclear advantage	1,000 m
Highest point	2,355 m	2,300 m
Vertical range	945 m	1,300 mclear advantage
Blue pistes	27%	43%
Red pistes	65%	54%
Black pistes	8%	3%
Terrain above 2,000 m	29%	25%
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%
Piste-mix diversity	75/100	72/100
Slope-angle diversity	81/100clear advantage	60/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	17%clear advantage	4%
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
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–
Open lifts	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	488 pph/km	457 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	0.37×clear advantage	0.24×
Terrain per lift	2.2 km/lift	3.3 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	6°C	9°C
Maximum temperature	16°C	16°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	family
Piste variety	–	–
Off-piste	–	–
Cross-country	–	–
Lift network	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–
Après-ski	–	–
Public transport	–	transit
Best airport transfer	98 min	–
Skiing per transfer hour	16 km/h transfer	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Pralognan La Vanoise

Pralognan La Vanoise

Resort overview

Pralognan La Vanoise

Wald

Detailed comparison