Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Bugnenets narrowly leads because of solid terrain match · 56/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 33/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Buttes is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Bugnenets

50/100

Why

Bugnenets narrowly leads because of solid terrain match · 56/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 33/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Buttes is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago

Structural fit score: 50/100.

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeButtes

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Buttes is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

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

Bugnenets

Family-led destinationLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Buttes. solid terrain match · 56/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 33/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.

Why Bugnenets leads Buttes Snow reliability +1.4 pts

Snow reliability +1.4Terrain fit -1.0

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

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 resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 12 and Buttes becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.3pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.

Evidence confidence55%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier2 options

No selected option is clearly dominated on the shared evidence.

Lowest-regret optionButtes · 91% robustness

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.

Lift systemButtes

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 12 and Buttes becomes the leading option.

14 → 12

Family & valueButtes

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 14 and Buttes becomes the leading option.

12 → 14

TerrainButtes

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 29 and Buttes becomes the leading option.

22 → 29

SnowButtes

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 16 and Buttes becomes the leading option.

24 → 16

Why Bugnenets leads Buttes · 0.3 pts

Family & value-3.1 pts

Lift system+2.6 pts

Snow+1.4 pts

Terrain-1.1 pts

Scale+0.6 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.

Bugnenets

#1 · Bugnenets-Savagnieres · Switzerland

Decision50/100

Fit50/100

Now0/100

Quality4.8/10

Now00 cm freshReliability3333/100Terrain5656/100

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.

Fit49.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision49.9/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow33/100 · 37% evidence 9.0 / 27.3 pts

Terrain67/100 · 52% evidence 16.7 / 25.0 pts

Scale57/100 · 85% evidence 10.4 / 18.2 pts

Lift system22/100 · 68% evidence 3.6 / 15.9 pts

Family & value75/100 · 41% evidence 10.3 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 48%

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 useAdvanced skiing · 54/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area30 km · 371 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 56/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 33/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Buttes

#2 · La Robella · Switzerland

Decision50/100

Fit50/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability2828/100Terrain5858/100

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.

Fit49.6100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision49.6/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow28/100 · 27% evidence 7.6 / 27.3 pts

Terrain71/100 · 44% evidence 17.8 / 25.0 pts

Scale54/100 · 100% evidence 9.8 / 18.2 pts

Lift system6/100 · 68% evidence 1.0 / 15.9 pts

Family & value98/100 · 28% evidence 13.4 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 45%

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 · 57/100Snow reliabilityNot availableSki area20 km · 666 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 28/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Boudevilliers

#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	BugnenetsBugnenets-Savagnieres	ButtesLa Robella	BoudevilliersSwitzerland
Assessment
Decision score	50/100	50/100	–
Structural Fit	50/100	50/100	–
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100	–
Overall quality	4.8/10	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	29/100	–	–
Typical daytime high	2°C	–	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	–	–
Rating	6.8/10	–	–
Area size class	20–50 km	20 km or less	–
Ability profile	expert	expert	–
Price class	high	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	30 km	20 km	–
Lowest point	1,078 mclear advantage	780 m	–
Highest point	1,449 m	1,446 m	–
Vertical range	371 m	666 mclear advantage	–
Blue pistes	33%	50%	–
Red pistes	33%	25%	–
Black pistes	33%clear advantage	25%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	100/100	95/100	–
Slope-angle diversity	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	–	–
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 cm	0 cm	–
Snow quality	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	252 pph/kmclear advantage	140 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.24×clear advantage	0.14×	–
Terrain per lift	3.8 km/lift	5.0 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	2°C	2°C	4°C
Maximum temperature	7°C	10°C	10°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–	–
Piste variety	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	–
Public transport	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	–	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Bugnenets

Bugnenets

Resort overview

Bugnenets

Buttes

Boudevilliers

Detailed comparison