Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Abertamy is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 29/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Bedrichov is the strongest alternative. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Recommended

Abertamy

47/100

Why

Abertamy is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 29/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Bedrichov is the strongest alternative. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 15 h ago

Structural fit score: 47/100.

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

AlternativeBedrichov

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

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

Abertamy

Family progression baseLow-regret choice

Leads on solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 29/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Abertamy leads Bedrichov Terrain fit +9.0 pts and Snow reliability +1.7 pts

Terrain fit +9.0Snow reliability +1.7

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

Strongest alternativeBedrichov

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

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

Lead margin10.8pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence53%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier1 option

1 option is dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Why Abertamy leads Bedrichov · 10.8 pts

Terrain+3.8 pts

Lift system+3.1 pts

Snow+1.7 pts

Scale+1.1 pts

Family & value+1.0 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.

Abertamy

#1 · Plesivec Abertamy · Czech Republik

Decision47/100

Fit47/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability2929/100Terrain5353/100

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.

Fit46.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision46.6/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow29/100 · 37% evidence 8.0 / 27.3 pts

Terrain43/100 · 44% evidence 10.8 / 25.0 pts

Scale36/100 · 85% evidence 6.5 / 18.2 pts

Lift system62/100 · 68% evidence 9.9 / 15.9 pts

Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.4 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 47%

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 · 57/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area12 km · 198 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 29/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Bedrichov

#2 · Bedrichov · Czech Republik

Decision36/100

Fit36/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability2323/100Terrain4141/100

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.

Fit35.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision35.8/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow23/100 · 37% evidence 6.3 / 27.3 pts

Terrain28/100 · 44% evidence 7.0 / 25.0 pts

Scale30/100 · 85% evidence 5.4 / 18.2 pts

Lift system43/100 · 68% evidence 6.8 / 15.9 pts

Family & value76/100 · 41% evidence 10.4 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 47%

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-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 47/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area10 km · 92 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 41/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 23/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Benecko

#3 · · Czech Republik

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	AbertamyPlesivec Abertamy	BedrichovBedrichov	BeneckoCzech Republik
Assessment
Decision score	47/100clear advantage	36/100	–
Structural Fit	47/100clear advantage	36/100	–
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100	–
Overall quality	–	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	43/100	42/100	–
Typical daytime high	4°C	2°C	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	0°C	-3°Cclear advantage	–
Rating	6.2/10clear advantage	4.6/10	–
Area size class	20 km or less	20 km or less	–
Ability profile	novice	novice	–
Price class	–	avg	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	12 km	10 km	–
Lowest point	830 m	710 m	–
Highest point	1,028 mclear advantage	802 m	–
Vertical range	198 m	92 m	–
Blue pistes	58%	80%	–
Red pistes	33%	20%	–
Black pistes	8%clear advantage	0%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	81/100clear advantage	72/100	–
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	1,025 pph/kmclear advantage	492 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.23×	0.25×	–
Terrain per lift	1.3 km/lift	1.7 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	4°C	8°C	7°C
Maximum temperature	11°C	11°C	13°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	–	–	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Abertamy

Abertamy

Resort overview

Abertamy

Bedrichov

Benecko

Detailed comparison