Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Eyne narrowly leads because of solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Font Romeu is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Eyne

65/100

Why

Eyne narrowly leads because of solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Font Romeu is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago

Structural fit score: 65/100.

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeFont Romeu

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Font Romeu is small. Some 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

Eyne

Family progression baseEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Font Romeu. solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.

Why Eyne leads Font Romeu Snow reliability +4.7 pts and Terrain fit +1.9 pts

Snow now -6.3Snow reliability +4.7Terrain fit +1.9

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

Strongest alternativeFont Romeu

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Font Romeu is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 16 and Font Romeu becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.4pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 2–2.

Evidence confidence55%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier2 options

1 option is dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Lowest-regret optionFont Romeu · 97% robustness

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 systemFont Romeu

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 16 and Font Romeu becomes the leading option.

14 → 16

SnowFont Romeu

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 21 and Font Romeu becomes the leading option.

24 → 21

ScaleFont Romeu

Increase scale weight from 16 to 22 and Font Romeu becomes the leading option.

16 → 22

Family & valueFont Romeu

Reduce family & value weight from 12 to 4 and Font Romeu becomes the leading option.

12 → 4

Why Eyne leads Font Romeu · 0.4 pts

Current opportunity-6.3 pts

Snow+4.7 pts

Terrain+2.5 pts

Lift system-2.1 pts

Family & value+1.4 pts

Scale+0.1 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.

Eyne

#1 · Espace Cambre dAze · France

Decision65/100

Fit65/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability7474/100Terrain6262/100

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.

Fit65.1100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision65.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow74/100 · 37% evidence 20.3 / 27.3 pts

Terrain62/100 · 44% evidence 15.4 / 25.0 pts

Scale58/100 · 100% evidence 10.6 / 18.2 pts

Lift system45/100 · 68% evidence 7.1 / 15.9 pts

Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 11.7 / 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 · 70/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area24 km · 760 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Font Romeu

#2 · Font Romeu · France

Decision65/100

Fit68/100

Now47/100

Quality5.5/10

Now47145 cm upperReliability6666/100Terrain6868/100

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.

Fit67.587% weight Now46.813% weight Decision64.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow66/100 · 37% evidence 18.0 / 27.3 pts

Terrain60/100 · 52% evidence 14.9 / 25.0 pts

Scale67/100 · 100% evidence 12.1 / 18.2 pts

Lift system67/100 · 68% evidence 10.6 / 15.9 pts

Family & value87/100 · 41% evidence 11.9 / 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.

Mountain snow145 cm 20.7 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow150 cm 19.0 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow147 cm 7.0 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 73/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area58 km · 496 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 mCalendar contextMountain snow is 148% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.

Strengths

Good terrain match · 68/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 66/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Formigueres

#3 · Formigueres Pyrenees · France

Decision54/100

Fit58/100

Now29/100

Quality7.2/10

Now29100 cm upperReliability7070/100Terrain5353/100

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.

Fit58.087% weight Now28.813% weight Decision54.1/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow70/100 · 37% evidence 19.2 / 27.3 pts

Terrain51/100 · 52% evidence 12.7 / 25.0 pts

Scale54/100 · 100% evidence 9.8 / 18.2 pts

Lift system33/100 · 68% evidence 5.3 / 15.9 pts

Family & value81/100 · 41% evidence 11.0 / 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.

Mountain snow100 cm 14.3 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow80 cm 10.2 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow92 cm 4.4 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 63/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area22 km · 590 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 70/100 — 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	EyneEspace Cambre dAze	Font RomeuFont Romeu	FormigueresFormigueres Pyrenees
Assessment
Decision score	65/100	65/100	54/100
Structural Fit	65/100	68/100	58/100
Current opportunity	0/100	47/100clear advantage	29/100
Overall quality	–	5.5/10	7.2/10clear advantage
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	68/100	58/100	61/100
Typical daytime high	5°C	5°C	6°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-3°C	-3°C	-2°C
Rating	6.8/10	6.7/10	6.4/10
Area size class	20–50 km	50–100 km	20–50 km
Ability profile	intermediate	intermediate	novice
Price class	avg	avg	low
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	24 km	58 kmclear advantage	22 km
Lowest point	1,640 m	1,717 m	1,730 m
Highest point	2,400 m	2,213 m	2,320 m
Vertical range	760 mclear advantage	496 m	590 m
Blue pistes	58%	52%	68%
Red pistes	30%	33%	27%
Black pistes	12%	16%	5%
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	85/100	91/100	69/100
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	–	Well above typical+148% vs average · 100th percentile	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	Well above typical+396% vs average · 100th percentile	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	150 cmclear advantage	80 cm
Mid-mountain snow	–	147 cmclear advantage	92 cm
Mountain snow	–	145 cmclear advantage	100 cm
Fresh snow	0 cm	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	408 pph/km	605 pph/kmclear advantage	385 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	0.30×	0.29×	0.24×
Terrain per lift	1.7 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	3.7 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	-2°C	4°C	4°C
Maximum temperature	3°C	14°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

Eyne

Eyne

Resort overview

Eyne

Font Romeu

Formigueres

Detailed comparison