Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Sorenberg is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 72/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 60/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Crest Voland Cohennoz is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Effectively tied

Sorenberg

70/100

Why

Sorenberg is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 72/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 60/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Crest Voland Cohennoz is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Limited evidenceUpdated 19 h ago

Structural fit score: 70/100.

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

AlternativeCrest Voland Cohennoz

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

Sorenberg

Family progression baseLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Crest Voland Cohennoz. good terrain match · 72/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 60/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Sorenberg leads Crest Voland Cohennoz Snow reliability +2.3 pts and Access +0.7 pts

Snow reliability +2.3Access +0.7Terrain fit +0.4

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

Strongest alternativeCrest Voland Cohennoz

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

What could change the resultReduce terrain weight from 22 to 1 and Crest Voland Cohennoz becomes the leading option.

Lead margin3.4pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

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.

TerrainCrest Voland Cohennoz

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 1 and Crest Voland Cohennoz becomes the leading option.

22 → 1

Lift systemCrest Voland Cohennoz

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 37 and Crest Voland Cohennoz becomes the leading option.

14 → 37

ScaleCrest Voland Cohennoz

Increase scale weight from 16 to 55 and Crest Voland Cohennoz becomes the leading option.

16 → 55

Why Sorenberg leads Crest Voland Cohennoz · 3.4 pts

Terrain+3.7 pts

Snow+2.3 pts

Lift system-2.2 pts

Scale-1.4 pts

Access+0.7 pts

Family & value+0.3 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.

Sorenberg

#1 · Sorenberg · Switzerland

Decision70/100

Fit70/100

Now0/100

Quality6.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6060/100Terrain7272/100Access7971 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.

Fit69.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision69.9/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow60/100 · 73% evidence 14.4 / 24.0 pts

Terrain76/100 · 80% evidence 16.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale75/100 · 100% evidence 12.0 / 16.0 pts

Lift system50/100 · 68% evidence 6.9 / 14.0 pts

Access79/100 · 68% evidence 9.5 / 12.0 pts

Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 10.2 / 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 72/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area42 km · 1,188 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m18%Best transfer71 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 72/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 60/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Crest Voland Cohennoz

#2 · Espace Diamant · France

Decision67/100

Fit67/100

Now0/100

Quality7.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability5151/100Terrain7171/100Access7381 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.

Fit66.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision66.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow51/100 · 73% evidence 12.1 / 24.0 pts

Terrain60/100 · 80% evidence 13.1 / 22.0 pts

Scale84/100 · 100% evidence 13.4 / 16.0 pts

Lift system65/100 · 68% evidence 9.1 / 14.0 pts

Access73/100 · 68% evidence 8.8 / 12.0 pts

Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 9.9 / 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 70/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area192 km · 1,069 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer81 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Mixed reliability match · 51/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

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	SorenbergSorenberg	Crest Voland CohennozEspace Diamant
Assessment
Decision score	70/100	67/100
Structural Fit	70/100	67/100
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100
Overall quality	6.5/10	7.0/10clear advantage
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	70/100	75/100
Typical daytime high	3°C	3°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–
Typical overnight low	-3°C	-4°C
Rating	6.3/10	6.8/10clear advantage
Area size class	20–50 km	150–250 km
Ability profile	intermediate	novice
Price class	high	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	42 km	192 kmclear advantage
Lowest point	1,110 m	1,000 m
Highest point	2,298 mclear advantage	2,069 m
Vertical range	1,188 m	1,069 m
Blue pistes	57%	69%
Red pistes	24%	26%
Black pistes	19%clear advantage	6%
Terrain above 2,000 m	18%clear advantage	0%
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%
Piste-mix diversity	89/100clear advantage	70/100
Slope-angle diversity	77/100clear advantage	36/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	14%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	417 pph/km	495 pph/kmclear advantage
Lift-system coverage	0.36×	0.35×
Terrain per lift	2.5 km/lift	2.4 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	9°C	9°C
Maximum temperature	15°C	16°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	family
Piste variety	–	slopes
Off-piste	–	–
Cross-country	–	–
Lift network	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–
Après-ski	–	–
Public transport	transit	transit
Best airport transfer	71 min	81 min
Skiing per transfer hour	35 km/h transfer	142 km/h transferclear advantage

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Sorenberg

Sorenberg

Resort overview

Sorenberg

Crest Voland Cohennoz

Detailed comparison