Engelberg
Effectively tied with Andermatt. good terrain match · 73/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeAndermatt
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Andermatt is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 2 and Andermatt becomes the leading option.
Difference between the first and second option.
The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–1.
Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.
Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
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.
Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 2 and Andermatt becomes the leading option.
Reduce scale weight from 16 to 3 and Andermatt becomes the leading option.
Increase snow weight from 24 to 43 and Andermatt becomes the leading option.
Increase access weight from 12 to 67 and Andermatt becomes the leading option.
Why Engelberg leads Andermatt · 1.2 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.