Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Bolsterlang is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 38/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Sainte Foy en Tarentaise is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Recommended

Bolsterlang

65/100

Why

Bolsterlang is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 38/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Sainte Foy en Tarentaise is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Limited evidenceUpdated 21 h ago

Structural fit score: 65/100.

Evidence coverage is limited; the ranking may move with new observations.

AlternativeSainte Foy en Tarentaise

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

Bolsterlang

Efficient short-break baseLow-regret choice

Leads on good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 38/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Bolsterlang leads Sainte Foy en Tarentaise Terrain fit +11.1 pts and Access +2.8 pts

Terrain fit +11.1Snow reliability -4.9Access +2.8

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

Strongest alternativeSainte Foy en Tarentaise

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 3 and Sainte Foy en Tarentaise becomes the leading option.

Lead margin8.9pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence67%

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.

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 systemSainte Foy en Tarentaise

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 3 and Sainte Foy en Tarentaise becomes the leading option.

14 → 3

SnowSainte Foy en Tarentaise

Increase snow weight from 24 to 68 and Sainte Foy en Tarentaise becomes the leading option.

24 → 68

ScaleSainte Foy en Tarentaise

Increase scale weight from 16 to 72 and Sainte Foy en Tarentaise becomes the leading option.

16 → 72

Why Bolsterlang leads Sainte Foy en Tarentaise · 8.9 pts

Lift system+11.5 pts

Snow-4.9 pts

Access+2.8 pts

Scale-2.5 pts

Family & value+2.1 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.

Bolsterlang

#1 · Hornergruppe · Germany

Decision65/100

Fit65/100

Now0/100

Quality6.6/10

Now00 cm freshReliability3838/100Terrain7171/100Access8651 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.

Fit64.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision64.8/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow38/100 · 73% evidence 9.2 / 24.0 pts

Terrain58/100 · 80% evidence 12.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale58/100 · 85% evidence 9.3 / 16.0 pts

Lift system96/100 · 8% evidence 13.5 / 14.0 pts

Access86/100 · 68% evidence 10.3 / 12.0 pts

Family & value81/100 · 41% evidence 9.7 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 63%

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 typeEfficient short-break baseBest useShort breaks · 72/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area18 km · 840 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer51 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 38/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Sainte Foy en Tarentaise

#2 · Sainte Foy · France

Decision56/100

Fit56/100

Now0/100

Quality8.2/10

Now00 cm freshReliability5959/100Terrain5454/100Access6399 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.

Fit55.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision55.9/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow59/100 · 73% evidence 14.1 / 24.0 pts

Terrain58/100 · 80% evidence 12.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale74/100 · 100% evidence 11.8 / 16.0 pts

Lift system15/100 · 68% evidence 2.0 / 14.0 pts

Access63/100 · 68% evidence 7.5 / 12.0 pts

Family & value64/100 · 41% evidence 7.6 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 74%

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 typeScale-led destinationBest useAdvanced skiing · 57/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area43 km · 1,070 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer99 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 59/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

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	BolsterlangHornergruppe	Sainte Foy en TarentaiseSainte Foy
Assessment
Decision score	65/100clear advantage	56/100
Structural Fit	65/100clear advantage	56/100
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100
Overall quality	6.6/10	8.2/10clear advantage
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	45/100	84/100clear advantage
Typical daytime high	4°C	2°Cclear advantage
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–
Typical overnight low	-3°C	-4°C
Rating	6.8/10	7.3/10clear advantage
Area size class	20 km or less	20–50 km
Ability profile	intermediate	advanced
Price class	low	low
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	18 km	43 kmclear advantage
Lowest point	760 m	1,550 mclear advantage
Highest point	1,600 m	2,620 mclear advantage
Vertical range	840 m	1,070 mclear advantage
Blue pistes	40%	23%
Red pistes	39%	63%
Black pistes	21%clear advantage	14%
Terrain above 2,000 m	0%	0%
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%
Piste-mix diversity	97/100clear advantage	82/100
Slope-angle diversity	17/100	12/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	0%	1%
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
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–
Open lifts	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	274 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	–	0.12×
Terrain per lift	0.5 km/lift	7.2 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	9°C	10°C
Maximum temperature	17°C	16°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–
Piste variety	–	–
Off-piste	–	–
Cross-country	–	–
Lift network	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–
Après-ski	–	–
Public transport	transit	–
Best airport transfer	51 minclear advantage	99 min
Skiing per transfer hour	21 km/h transfer	26 km/h transfer

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Bolsterlang

Bolsterlang

Resort overview

Bolsterlang

Sainte Foy en Tarentaise

Detailed comparison