Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Aprica is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Zuoz is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Narrow lead

Aprica

67/100

Why

Aprica is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Zuoz is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Limited evidenceUpdated 23 h ago

Structural fit score: 67/100.

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

AlternativeZuoz

Main uncertaintySome 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

Aprica

Family progression baseLow-regret choiceNarrow lead

Leads on good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Aprica leads Zuoz Terrain fit +6.1 pts and Access +2.2 pts

Terrain fit +6.1Snow reliability -2.9Access +2.2

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

Strongest alternativeZuoz

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultIncrease snow weight from 24 to 70 and Zuoz becomes the leading option.

Lead margin5.3pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence64%

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.

SnowZuoz

Increase snow weight from 24 to 70 and Zuoz becomes the leading option.

24 → 70

Why Aprica leads Zuoz · 5.3 pts

Scale+3.0 pts

Snow-2.9 pts

Access+2.2 pts

Lift system+1.9 pts

Terrain+0.8 pts

Family & value+0.4 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.

Aprica

#1 · Aprica · Italy

Decision67/100

Fit67/100

Now0/100

Quality6.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6868/100Terrain7171/100Access46115 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.

Fit67.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision67.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow68/100 · 37% evidence 16.4 / 24.0 pts

Terrain73/100 · 52% evidence 16.0 / 22.0 pts

Scale76/100 · 100% evidence 12.1 / 16.0 pts

Lift system47/100 · 68% evidence 6.5 / 14.0 pts

Access46/100 · 68% evidence 5.5 / 12.0 pts

Family & value88/100 · 41% evidence 10.6 / 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useAdvanced skiing · 69/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area50 km · 1,108 m verticalBest transfer115 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Zuoz

#2 · Zuoz · Switzerland

Decision62/100

Fit62/100

Now0/100

Quality8.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability8080/100Terrain6161/100Access28141 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.

Fit61.8100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision61.8/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow80/100 · 37% evidence 19.3 / 24.0 pts

Terrain69/100 · 52% evidence 15.2 / 22.0 pts

Scale57/100 · 100% evidence 9.1 / 16.0 pts

Lift system33/100 · 68% evidence 4.6 / 14.0 pts

Access28/100 · 68% evidence 3.3 / 12.0 pts

Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 10.2 / 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 typeFamily progression baseBest useSnow-first trips · 68/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area15 km · 745 m verticalBest transfer141 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 61/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Strong reliability match · 80/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

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	ApricaAprica	ZuozZuoz
Assessment
Decision score	67/100clear advantage	62/100
Structural Fit	67/100clear advantage	62/100
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100
Overall quality	6.5/10	8.5/10clear advantage
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	65/100	79/100clear advantage
Typical daytime high	2°C	0°Cclear advantage
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-10°Cclear advantage
Rating	7.1/10clear advantage	6.4/10
Area size class	20–50 km	20 km or less
Ability profile	intermediate	intermediate
Price class	low	high
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	50 kmclear advantage	15 km
Lowest point	1,162 m	1,720 mclear advantage
Highest point	2,270 m	2,465 mclear advantage
Vertical range	1,108 mclear advantage	745 m
Blue pistes	54%	60%
Red pistes	31%	20%
Black pistes	15%	20%
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	90/100	86/100
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
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–
Open lifts	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	476 pph/kmclear advantage	287 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	0.22×	0.35×clear advantage
Terrain per lift	3.1 km/lift	3.0 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	4°C	3°C
Maximum temperature	16°C	16°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–
Piste variety	–	–
Off-piste	–	–
Cross-country	–	crosscountry
Lift network	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–
Après-ski	–	–
Public transport	–	–
Best airport transfer	115 minclear advantage	141 min
Skiing per transfer hour	26 km/h transfer	6 km/h transfer

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Aprica

Aprica

Resort overview

Aprica

Zuoz

Detailed comparison