Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Pizol is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Amden is the strongest alternative. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Recommended

Pizol

68/100

Why

Pizol is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Amden is the strongest alternative. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago

Structural fit score: 68/100.

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeAmden

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.

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Pizol

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choice

Leads on good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Pizol leads Amden Terrain fit +19.3 pts and Snow reliability +5.2 pts

Terrain fit +19.3Access -10.2Snow reliability +5.2

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

Strongest alternativeAmden

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

What could change the resultIncrease access weight from 12 to 95 and Amden becomes the leading option.

Lead margin14.3pts

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.

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.

AccessAmden

Increase access weight from 12 to 95 and Amden becomes the leading option.

12 → 95

Why Pizol leads Amden · 14.3 pts

Access-10.2 pts

Scale+7.3 pts

Snow+5.2 pts

Terrain+5.2 pts

Lift system+4.4 pts

Family & value+2.4 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.

Pizol

#1 · Pizol Bad Ragaz Wangs · Switzerland

Decision68/100

Fit68/100

Now4/100

Quality6.2/10

Now42 cm freshReliability5858/100Terrain7171/100

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.

Fit67.7100% weight Now4.00% weight Decision67.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow58/100 · 73% evidence 15.8 / 27.3 pts

Terrain71/100 · 80% evidence 17.7 / 25.0 pts

Scale87/100 · 100% evidence 15.8 / 18.2 pts

Lift system48/100 · 68% evidence 7.7 / 15.9 pts

Family & value79/100 · 41% evidence 10.7 / 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 snow2 cm 4.0 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 69/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area44 km · 1,718 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m26%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 58/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Amden

#2 · Amden · Switzerland

Decision53/100

Fit53/100

Now0/100

Quality4.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4444/100Terrain5151/100Access8551 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.

Fit53.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision53.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow44/100 · 37% evidence 10.6 / 24.0 pts

Terrain57/100 · 52% evidence 12.5 / 22.0 pts

Scale53/100 · 100% evidence 8.5 / 16.0 pts

Lift system24/100 · 68% evidence 3.3 / 14.0 pts

Access85/100 · 68% evidence 10.2 / 12.0 pts

Family & value69/100 · 41% evidence 8.3 / 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.

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 typeAccess-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 57/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area17 km · 753 m verticalBest transfer51 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 51/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Wildsee

#3 · · Switzerland

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	PizolPizol Bad Ragaz Wangs	AmdenAmden	WildseeSwitzerland
Assessment
Decision score	68/100clear advantage	53/100	–
Structural Fit	68/100clear advantage	53/100	–
Current opportunity	4/100	0/100	–
Overall quality	6.2/10clear advantage	4.0/10	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	62/100clear advantage	45/100	–
Typical daytime high	3°C	4°C	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-3°C	–
Rating	5.9/10	5.8/10	–
Area size class	20–50 km	20 km or less	–
Ability profile	intermediate	advanced	–
Price class	high	high	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	44 kmclear advantage	17 km	–
Lowest point	509 m	931 mclear advantage	–
Highest point	2,227 mclear advantage	1,684 m	–
Vertical range	1,718 mclear advantage	753 m	–
Blue pistes	43%	32%	–
Red pistes	42%	68%	–
Black pistes	15%clear advantage	0%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	26%	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	92/100	91/100	–
Slope-angle diversity	40/100	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	5%	–	–
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	2 cm	0 cm	–
Snow quality	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	3 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	411 pph/kmclear advantage	245 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.36×clear advantage	0.28×	–
Terrain per lift	3.6 km/lift	2.8 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	-4°C	1°C	-7°C
Maximum temperature	3°C	8°C	-1°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–	–
Piste variety	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	–
Public transport	transit	transit	–
Best airport transfer	–	51 min	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	20 km/h transfer	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Pizol

Pizol

Resort overview

Pizol

Amden

Wildsee

Detailed comparison