Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Ballon dAlsace is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 64/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 27/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Cernay is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Recommended

Ballon dAlsace

54/100

Why

Ballon dAlsace is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 64/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 27/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Cernay is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 20 h ago

Structural fit score: 54/100.

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

AlternativeCernay

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

Ballon dAlsace

Family progression baseLow-regret choice

Leads on good terrain match · 64/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 27/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Ballon dAlsace leads Cernay Terrain fit +14.7 pts

Terrain fit +14.7Snow reliability -1.5

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

Strongest alternativeCernay

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

What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 78 and Cernay becomes the leading option.

Lead margin13.1pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

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.

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.

Family & valueCernay

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 78 and Cernay becomes the leading option.

12 → 78

Why Ballon dAlsace leads Cernay · 13.1 pts

Terrain+13.2 pts

Scale+3.3 pts

Family & value-2.4 pts

Snow-1.5 pts

Lift system+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.

Ballon dAlsace

#1 · Le Ballon dAlsace · France

Decision54/100

Fit54/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability2727/100Terrain6464/100

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.

Fit54.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision54.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow27/100 · 37% evidence 7.4 / 27.3 pts

Terrain61/100 · 44% evidence 15.3 / 25.0 pts

Scale31/100 · 100% evidence 5.6 / 18.2 pts

Lift system91/100 · 68% evidence 14.5 / 15.9 pts

Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 11.2 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 49%

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 · 63/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area5 km · 421 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 64/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 27/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Cernay

#2 · Cernay · France

Decision41/100

Fit41/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability3333/100Terrain4444/100

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.

Fit40.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision40.9/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow33/100 · 37% evidence 8.9 / 27.3 pts

Terrain9/100 · 31% evidence 2.1 / 25.0 pts

Scale13/100 · 100% evidence 2.3 / 18.2 pts

Lift system87/100 · 68% evidence 13.9 / 15.9 pts

Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 43%

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 · 62/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area1 km · 198 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 44/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 33/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Kaysersberg

#3 · · France

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	Ballon dAlsaceLe Ballon dAlsace	CernayCernay	KaysersbergFrance
Assessment
Decision score	54/100clear advantage	41/100	–
Structural Fit	54/100clear advantage	41/100	–
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100	–
Overall quality	–	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	26/100	47/100clear advantage	–
Typical daytime high	5°C	6°C	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	0°C	0°C	–
Rating	6.4/10	–	–
Area size class	20 km or less	20 km or less	–
Ability profile	intermediate	novice	–
Price class	avg	avg	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	5 km	1 km	–
Lowest point	810 m	890 m	–
Highest point	1,231 m	1,088 m	–
Vertical range	421 mclear advantage	198 m	–
Blue pistes	45%	100%	–
Red pistes	38%	0%	–
Black pistes	17%clear advantage	0%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	94/100	–	–
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	1,665 pph/km	2,604 pph/kmclear advantage	–
Lift-system coverage	0.89×	1.20×clear advantage	–
Terrain per lift	0.4 km/lift	0.3 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	5°C	3°C	8°C
Maximum temperature	11°C	13°C	13°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–	–
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

Ballon dAlsace

Ballon dAlsace

Resort overview

Ballon dAlsace

Cernay

Kaysersberg

Detailed comparison