Helm
Effectively tied with Nassfeld. good terrain match · 68/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 45/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeNassfeld
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Nassfeld is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.
What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 12 and Nassfeld becomes the leading option.
Difference between the first and second option.
The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.
Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.
Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
1 option is dominated on commonly available dimensions.
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 12 and Nassfeld becomes the leading option.
Reduce access weight from 12 to 8 and Nassfeld becomes the leading option.
Increase terrain weight from 22 to 26 and Nassfeld becomes the leading option.
Increase scale weight from 16 to 20 and Nassfeld becomes the leading option.
Why Helm leads Nassfeld · 0.7 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.