Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Rauland is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Vradal is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Narrow lead

Rauland

54/100

Why

Rauland is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Vradal is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 17 h ago

Structural fit score: 54/100.

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

AlternativeVradal

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

Rauland

Family progression baseLow-regret choiceNarrow lead

Leads on solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Rauland leads Vradal Snow reliability +5.0 pts and Terrain fit +0.6 pts

Snow reliability +5.0Terrain fit +0.6

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

Strongest alternativeVradal

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

What could change the resultThe recommendation remains first under the tested nearby priority shifts in the available evidence.

Lead margin5.6pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence57%

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.

Why Rauland leads Vradal · 5.6 pts

Snow+5.0 pts

Lift system+0.7 pts

Family & value-0.3 pts

Terrain+0.1 pts

Scale+0.1 pts

Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.

Priority sensitivity

The leading resort remains first under moderate one-criterion weighting shifts in the available evidence.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

Trip match is profile-specific. Expand the calculation to see exactly how each score is built.

Rauland

#1 · Rauland · Norway

Decision54/100

Fit54/100

Now0/100

Quality8.2/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4444/100Terrain5858/100

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.

Fit54.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision54.3/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow44/100 · 37% evidence 12.0 / 27.3 pts

Terrain55/100 · 52% evidence 13.7 / 25.0 pts

Scale47/100 · 100% evidence 8.6 / 18.2 pts

Lift system55/100 · 68% evidence 8.7 / 15.9 pts

Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.3 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 51%

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 · 61/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area20 km · 335 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated 1 day earlierPeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Vradal

#2 · Vradal · Norway

Decision49/100

Fit49/100

Now0/100

Quality6.8/10

Now00 cm freshReliability2626/100Terrain5757/100

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.

Fit48.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision48.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow26/100 · 37% evidence 7.0 / 27.3 pts

Terrain54/100 · 52% evidence 13.6 / 25.0 pts

Scale47/100 · 100% evidence 8.5 / 18.2 pts

Lift system50/100 · 68% evidence 8.0 / 15.9 pts

Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 11.6 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 51%

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 · 57/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area16 km · 473 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated 1 day earlierPeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 57/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 26/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Kragero

#3 · · Norway

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 dataNo current update

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	RaulandRauland	VradalVradal	KrageroNorway
Assessment
Decision score	54/100clear advantage	49/100	–
Structural Fit	54/100clear advantage	49/100	–
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100	–
Overall quality	8.2/10clear advantage	6.8/10	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	74/100clear advantage	54/100	–
Typical daytime high	-2°Cclear advantage	2°C	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-8°Cclear advantage	-5°C	–
Rating	6.5/10	6.6/10	–
Area size class	20–50 km	20 km or less	–
Ability profile	intermediate	novice	–
Price class	avg	avg	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	20 km	16 km	–
Lowest point	805 mclear advantage	262 m	–
Highest point	1,140 mclear advantage	735 m	–
Vertical range	335 m	473 m	–
Blue pistes	48%	59%	–
Red pistes	44%	31%	–
Black pistes	8%	9%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	84/100	81/100	–
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	2 cm	1 cm	–
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	566 pph/km	633 pph/kmclear advantage	–
Lift-system coverage	0.29×	0.23×	–
Terrain per lift	2.0 km/lift	2.0 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	2°C	5°C	–
Maximum temperature	5°C	8°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

Rauland

Rauland

Resort overview

Rauland

Vradal

Kragero

Detailed comparison