Filzmoos
Effectively tied with Unterbach. solid terrain match · 57/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeUnterbach
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Unterbach is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
What could change the resultReduce access weight from 12 to 3 and Unterbach 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
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 access weight from 12 to 3 and Unterbach becomes the leading option.
Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 4 and Unterbach becomes the leading option.
Increase snow weight from 24 to 42 and Unterbach becomes the leading option.
Increase family & value weight from 12 to 59 and Unterbach becomes the leading option.
Why Filzmoos leads Unterbach · 2.4 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.