Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Serfaus Fiss Ladis is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 72/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Waidring is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Narrow lead

Serfaus Fiss Ladis

71/100

Why

Serfaus Fiss Ladis is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 72/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Waidring is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Limited evidenceUpdated 18 h ago

Structural fit score: 71/100.

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

AlternativeWaidring

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

Serfaus Fiss Ladis

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choiceNarrow lead

Leads on good terrain match · 72/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Serfaus Fiss Ladis leads Waidring Snow reliability +5.1 pts and Terrain fit +0.4 pts

Snow reliability +5.1Access -1.7Terrain fit +0.4

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

Strongest alternativeWaidring

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

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 23 and Waidring becomes the leading option.

Lead margin3.8pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence77%

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 systemWaidring

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 23 and Waidring becomes the leading option.

14 → 23

SnowWaidring

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 5 and Waidring becomes the leading option.

24 → 5

TerrainWaidring

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 3 and Waidring becomes the leading option.

22 → 3

AccessWaidring

Increase access weight from 12 to 40 and Waidring becomes the leading option.

12 → 40

Why Serfaus Fiss Ladis leads Waidring · 3.8 pts

Lift system-6.5 pts

Snow+5.1 pts

Terrain+4.7 pts

Scale+3.8 pts

Access-1.7 pts

Family & value-1.6 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.

Serfaus Fiss Ladis

#1 · Serfaus Fiss Ladis · Austria

Decision71/100

Fit71/100

Now0/100

Quality8.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6868/100Terrain7272/100Access7577 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.

Fit71.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision71.3/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow68/100 · 73% evidence 16.2 / 24.0 pts

Terrain73/100 · 80% evidence 16.1 / 22.0 pts

Scale97/100 · 100% evidence 15.6 / 16.0 pts

Lift system44/100 · 68% evidence 6.1 / 14.0 pts

Access75/100 · 68% evidence 9.0 / 12.0 pts

Family & value69/100 · 41% evidence 8.3 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 73/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area186 km · 1,628 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m52%Best transfer77 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,800+ m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 72/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Good reliability match · 68/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Waidring

#2 · Waidring Steinplatte · Austria

Decision68/100

Fit68/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4646/100Terrain7171/100Access8955 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.

Fit67.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision67.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow46/100 · 73% evidence 11.1 / 24.0 pts

Terrain52/100 · 72% evidence 11.4 / 22.0 pts

Scale74/100 · 85% evidence 11.8 / 16.0 pts

Lift system90/100 · 8% evidence 12.6 / 14.0 pts

Access89/100 · 68% evidence 10.7 / 12.0 pts

Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 9.9 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 61%

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 · 74/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area42 km · 800 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer55 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 · 46/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

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	Serfaus Fiss LadisSerfaus Fiss Ladis	WaidringWaidring Steinplatte
Assessment
Decision score	71/100	68/100
Structural Fit	71/100	68/100
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100
Overall quality	8.0/10	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	64/100	62/100
Typical daytime high	1°Cclear advantage	3°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–
Typical overnight low	-6°Cclear advantage	-4°C
Rating	8.2/10clear advantage	6.8/10
Area size class	150–250 km	20–50 km
Ability profile	advanced	advanced
Price class	avg	low
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	186 kmclear advantage	42 km
Lowest point	1,200 m	1,100 m
Highest point	2,828 mclear advantage	1,900 m
Vertical range	1,628 mclear advantage	800 m
Blue pistes	25%	48%
Red pistes	60%	48%
Black pistes	15%clear advantage	5%
Terrain above 2,000 m	52%clear advantage	0%
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%
Piste-mix diversity	85/100	78/100
Slope-angle diversity	44/100clear advantage	28/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	3%	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	435 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.23×	–
Terrain per lift	4.9 km/lift	2.0 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	8°C	10°C
Maximum temperature	17°C	18°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	family
Piste variety	slopes	–
Off-piste	–	–
Cross-country	–	–
Lift network	lifts	–
Mountain restaurants	restaurants	–
Après-ski	apresski	–
Public transport	transit	–
Best airport transfer	77 min	55 minclear advantage
Skiing per transfer hour	145 km/h transferclear advantage	46 km/h transfer

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Serfaus Fiss Ladis

Serfaus Fiss Ladis

Resort overview

Serfaus Fiss Ladis

Waidring

Detailed comparison