Montreux
Effectively tied with Buttes. mixed terrain match · 50/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 48/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeButtes
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Buttes is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.
What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 16 and Buttes 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 family & value weight from 12 to 16 and Buttes becomes the leading option.
Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 10 and Buttes becomes the leading option.
Reduce access weight from 12 to 1 and Buttes becomes the leading option.
Increase terrain weight from 22 to 33 and Buttes becomes the leading option.
Why Montreux leads Buttes · 2.8 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.