Reit im Winkl
Effectively tied with Leutasch. good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 56/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeLeutasch
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Leutasch is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.
What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 40 and Leutasch 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.
Increase lift system weight from 14 to 40 and Leutasch becomes the leading option.
Increase access weight from 12 to 46 and Leutasch becomes the leading option.
Why Reit im Winkl leads Leutasch · 2.8 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.