Skip to main content
Where to ski

Compare ski resorts

Compare long-term ski-area quality, current conditions and short-term seven-day skiing scenarios without mixing their evidence.

Selected2 of 10
ProfileBalanced
ModeStructural
Comparison workspace

Shape the comparison

Set the comparison priorities, then inspect which selected resort fits best and what could change the result.

2 of 10 selected
Export
Add resorts

Balances permanent quality, snow reliability, terrain and current conditions.

Tune prioritiesBalanced
Decision weights

Missing resort data remain eligible: unavailable evidence is omitted and confidence falls instead of the resort receiving a zero.

More comparison optionsTrip context · direct add · display
Fit = structural suitabilityNow = current opportunityDecision combines both when timing makes current conditions relevant
How Benchmark works

Priorities determine the structural ranking; optional trip context refines those priorities without excluding a resort. Evidence describes data support, Stability tests nearby priority changes, and Frontier marks a non-dominated option on comparable evidence.

Trip contextOptional

Use these only when they matter for this trip. They adjust ranking and interpretation; they are not hidden filters.

Travel origin is preserved with the decision state; access scoring uses the selected arrival hub when one is chosen.
Display options
Comparison sections
Decision horizon
Recommendation

Decision summary

Burs is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 65/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Finsterwald is the strongest alternative. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

Burs

59/100
Why
  1. Burs is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 65/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Finsterwald is the strongest alternative. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.
Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago
  • Structural fit score: 59/100.

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeFinsterwald
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.
Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago29.3 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Burs

Family progression baseLow-regret choice

Leads on good terrain match · 65/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Burs leads Finsterwald Terrain fit +25.4 pts and Snow reliability +3.9 pts
Terrain fit +25.4Snow reliability +3.9
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeFinsterwald

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

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

Lead margin29.3pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence70%

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 Burs leads Finsterwald · 29.3 pts
Terrain+12.4 pts
Scale+12.2 pts
Snow+3.9 pts
Family & value+0.8 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.

Burs

#1 · Brandnertal · Austria

Decision59/100
Fit59/100
Now0/100
Quality5.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4444/100Terrain6565/100
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.

Fit59.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision59.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow44/100 · 73% evidence 12.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain58/100 · 80% evidence 14.4 / 25.0 pts
Scale84/100 · 100% evidence 15.2 / 18.2 pts
Lift system40/100 · 68% evidence 6.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.4 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 66%

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 · 63/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area48 km · 1,096 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 65/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Finsterwald

#2 · Finsterwald · Switzerland

Decision30/100
Fit30/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability3030/100Terrain3030/100
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.

Fit30.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision30.0/100
Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow30/100 · 37% evidence 8.1 / 27.3 pts
Terrain8/100 · 31% evidence 2.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale16/100 · 85% evidence 3.0 / 18.2 pts
Lift system40/100 · 8% evidence 6.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value77/100 · 31% evidence 10.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 34%

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 · 45/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area2 km · 175 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 30/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 30/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

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.

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible
AttributeBursBrandnertalFinsterwaldFinsterwald
Assessment
Decision score 59/100clear advantage30/100
Structural Fit 59/100clear advantage30/100
Current opportunity 0/1000/100
Overall quality 5.0/10–
Recommendation confidence MediumLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 45/100clear advantage34/100
Typical daytime high 9°C6°Cclear advantage
Typical snow/freezing level ––
Typical overnight low 1°C-2°Cclear advantage
Rating 7.3/10clear advantage4.6/10
Area size class 20–50 km20 km or less
Ability profile advancednovice
Price class avgavg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 48 kmclear advantage2 km
Lowest point 904 m1,025 m
Highest point 2,000 mclear advantage1,200 m
Vertical range 1,096 mclear advantage175 m
Blue pistes 48%100%
Red pistes 49%0%
Black pistes 3%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 0%–
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%–
Piste-mix diversity 73/100–
Slope-angle diversity 43/100–
Very/extremely steep terrain 2%–
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 cm0 cm
Snow quality ––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes ––
Open lifts ––
Lift capacity per piste km 397 pph/km–
Lift-system coverage 0.26×–
Terrain per lift 3.2 km/lift0.4 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 2°C6°C
Maximum temperature 25°C9°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability family–
Piste variety ––
Off-piste ––
Cross-country ––
Lift network lifts–
Mountain restaurants restaurants–
Après-ski ––
Public transport transit–
Best airport transfer ––
Skiing per transfer hour ––