Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Stubaier gletscher narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 80/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 95/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Hintertux is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Stubaier gletscher

70/100

Why

Stubaier gletscher narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 80/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 95/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Hintertux is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Mixed evidenceUpdated 15 h ago

Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (85/100).

AlternativeHintertux

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Hintertux is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

Would change ifA material forecast shift or a different priority profile could change the ranking.

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Stubaier gletscher

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Hintertux. strong terrain match · 80/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 95/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.

Why Stubaier gletscher leads Hintertux Access +2.9 pts and Snow reliability +1.0 pts

Snow now -3.5Access +2.9Snow reliability +1.0Terrain fit +0.9

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

Strongest alternativeHintertux

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Hintertux is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultReduce access weight from 12 to 6 and Hintertux becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.2pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence68%

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.

AccessHintertux

Reduce access weight from 12 to 6 and Hintertux becomes the leading option.

12 → 6

TerrainHintertux

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 32 and Hintertux becomes the leading option.

22 → 32

Family & valueHintertux

Reduce family & value weight from 12 to 2 and Hintertux becomes the leading option.

12 → 2

Why Stubaier gletscher leads Hintertux · 1.2 pts

Current opportunity-3.5 pts

Access+2.9 pts

Terrain-2.1 pts

Family & value+1.9 pts

Snow+1.0 pts

Lift system+0.6 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.

Stubaier gletscher

#1 · Stubaier gletscher · Austria

Decision70/100

Fit85/100

Now3/100

Quality9.0/10

Now310 cm upperReliability9595/100Terrain8080/100Access9733 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.

Fit85.381% weight Now3.119% weight Decision69.8/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow95/100 · 37% evidence 22.7 / 24.0 pts

Terrain70/100 · 52% evidence 15.5 / 22.0 pts

Scale91/100 · 100% evidence 14.5 / 16.0 pts

Lift system76/100 · 68% evidence 10.7 / 14.0 pts

Access97/100 · 68% evidence 11.6 / 12.0 pts

Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 10.3 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 59%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow10 cm 1.1 / 33.3 pts

Open terrain8% 1.8 / 22.2 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 17.8 pts

Valley snow0 cm 0.0 / 17.8 pts

Mid-mountain snow6 cm 0.2 / 8.9 pts

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 90%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useShort breaks · 88/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area65 km · 1,515 m verticalBest transfer33 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 64% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 80/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Exceptional reliability match · 95/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Hintertux

#2 · Hintertux · Austria

Decision69/100

Fit82/100

Now19/100

Quality7.8/10

Now1910 cm upperReliability9393/100Terrain8181/100Access6982 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.

Fit82.478% weight Now19.022% weight Decision68.6/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow93/100 · 37% evidence 22.2 / 24.0 pts

Terrain86/100 · 52% evidence 18.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale90/100 · 85% evidence 14.4 / 16.0 pts

Lift system74/100 · 68% evidence 10.3 / 14.0 pts

Access69/100 · 68% evidence 8.3 / 12.0 pts

Family & value69/100 · 41% evidence 8.3 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 57%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow10 cm 1.0 / 30.0 pts

Open terrain29% 5.8 / 20.0 pts

Fresh snow3 cm 1.0 / 16.0 pts

Valley snow14 cm 1.2 / 16.0 pts

Snow quality9.6/10 9.6 / 10.0 pts

Mid-mountain snow12 cm 0.4 / 8.0 pts

Data coverage: 100%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useSnow-first trips · 86/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area64 km · 1,750 m verticalBest transfer82 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 82% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 81/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Exceptional reliability match · 93/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Grossvenediger

#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	Stubaier gletscherStubaier gletscher	HintertuxHintertux	GrossvenedigerAustria
Assessment
Decision score	70/100	69/100	–
Structural Fit	85/100	82/100	–
Current opportunity	3/100	19/100clear advantage	–
Overall quality	9.0/10clear advantage	7.8/10	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	94/100	90/100	–
Typical daytime high	-6°Cclear advantage	-3°C	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-12°C	-10°C	–
Rating	7.6/10	7.3/10	–
Area size class	50–100 km	50–100 km	–
Ability profile	novice	advanced	–
Price class	avg	high	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	65 km	64 km	–
Lowest point	1,695 mclear advantage	1,500 m	–
Highest point	3,210 m	3,250 m	–
Vertical range	1,515 m	1,750 mclear advantage	–
Blue pistes	60%	27%	–
Red pistes	36%	55%	–
Black pistes	4%	18%clear advantage	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	74/100	90/100clear advantage	–
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	Below typical-64% vs average · 21th percentile	Well below typical-82% vs average · 6th percentile	–
Valley snow versus typical	Close to typical-100% vs average · 0th percentile	Well above typical100th percentile	–
Open slopes versus typical	Well below typical-64% vs average · 11th percentile	Above typical+25% vs average · 74th percentile	–
Current snow
Valley snow	0 cm	14 cm	–
Mid-mountain snow	6 cm	12 cm	–
Mountain snow	10 cm	10 cm	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	3 cm	–
Snow quality	–	9.6/10	–
Snow alert	0 cm	2 cm	7 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	8%	29%clear advantage	–
Open lifts	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	678 pph/km	654 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.38×	0.37×	–
Terrain per lift	2.5 km/lift	3.0 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	-14°C	-2°C	-5°C
Maximum temperature	1°C	2°C	-2°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–	–
Piste variety	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–
Lift network	lifts	lifts	–
Mountain restaurants	–	restaurants	–
Après-ski	–	–	–
Public transport	transit	transit	–
Best airport transfer	33 minclear advantage	82 min	–
Skiing per transfer hour	118 km/h transferclear advantage	47 km/h transfer	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Stubaier gletscher

Stubaier gletscher

Resort overview

Stubaier gletscher

Hintertux

Grossvenediger

Detailed comparison