Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Gerlos narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 76/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 41/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Bad Ischl is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Effectively tied

Gerlos

56/100

Why

Gerlos narrowly leads because of strong terrain match · 76/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 41/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Bad Ischl is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago

Structural fit score: 68/100.

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeBad Ischl

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Bad Ischl is small. Most 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

Gerlos

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Bad Ischl. strong terrain match · 76/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 41/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Gerlos leads Bad Ischl Snow reliability +4.2 pts and Snow now +2.5 pts

Snow reliability +4.2Access -3.0Terrain fit -2.6Snow now +2.5

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

Strongest alternativeBad Ischl

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Bad Ischl is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 10 and Bad Ischl becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.3pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence76%

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 systemBad Ischl

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 10 and Bad Ischl becomes the leading option.

14 → 10

AccessBad Ischl

Increase access weight from 12 to 18 and Bad Ischl becomes the leading option.

12 → 18

SnowBad Ischl

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 17 and Bad Ischl becomes the leading option.

24 → 17

TerrainBad Ischl

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 29 and Bad Ischl becomes the leading option.

22 → 29

Why Gerlos leads Bad Ischl · 1.3 pts

Lift system+4.8 pts

Terrain-4.7 pts

Snow+4.2 pts

Access-3.0 pts

Current opportunity+2.5 pts

Scale-1.7 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.

Gerlos

#1 · Zillertal Arena · Austria

Decision56/100

Fit68/100

Now12/100

Quality7.0/10

Now1242 cm upperReliability4141/100Terrain7676/100Access7870 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.

Fit67.879% weight Now12.021% weight Decision56.3/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow41/100 · 72% evidence 9.7 / 24.0 pts

Terrain65/100 · 80% evidence 14.2 / 22.0 pts

Scale95/100 · 100% evidence 15.2 / 16.0 pts

Lift system75/100 · 68% evidence 10.5 / 14.0 pts

Access78/100 · 68% evidence 9.3 / 12.0 pts

Family & value73/100 · 41% evidence 8.7 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 73%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow42 cm 5.3 / 37.5 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 20.0 pts

Valley snow22 cm 2.4 / 20.0 pts

Snow quality2.3/10 2.9 / 12.5 pts

Mid-mountain snow34 cm 1.4 / 10.0 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 80%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 69/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area150 km · 1,920 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m41%Best transfer70 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,000–2,799 mCalendar contextMountain snow is 69% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 76/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Mixed reliability match · 41/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Bad Ischl

#2 · Salzkammergut · Austria

Decision55/100

Fit55/100

Now0/100

Quality4.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability1515/100Terrain6464/100Access8758 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.

Fit55.0100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision55.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow15/100 · 72% evidence 3.5 / 24.0 pts

Terrain73/100 · 80% evidence 16.0 / 22.0 pts

Scale86/100 · 85% evidence 13.8 / 16.0 pts

Lift system25/100 · 8% evidence 3.5 / 14.0 pts

Access87/100 · 68% evidence 10.4 / 12.0 pts

Family & value66/100 · 28% evidence 7.9 / 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 typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 60/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area67 km · 1,131 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer58 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 64/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 15/100 — 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	GerlosZillertal Arena	Bad IschlSalzkammergut
Assessment
Decision score	56/100	55/100
Structural Fit	68/100clear advantage	55/100
Current opportunity	12/100clear advantage	0/100
Overall quality	7.0/10clear advantage	4.5/10
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	23/100clear advantage	0/100
Typical daytime high	6°Cclear advantage	9°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–
Typical overnight low	-2°Cclear advantage	3°C
Rating	7.5/10	–
Area size class	100–150 km	50–100 km
Ability profile	advanced	advanced
Price class	low	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	150 kmclear advantage	67 km
Lowest point	580 m	469 m
Highest point	2,500 mclear advantage	1,600 m
Vertical range	1,920 mclear advantage	1,131 m
Blue pistes	33%	28%
Red pistes	59%	61%
Black pistes	8%	10%
Terrain above 2,000 m	41%clear advantage	0%
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%
Piste-mix diversity	80/100	81/100
Slope-angle diversity	32/100	73/100clear advantage
Very/extremely steep terrain	1%	9%clear advantage
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+69% vs average · 88th percentile	–
Valley snow versus typical	Well above typical+89% vs average · 90th percentile	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	22 cm	–
Mid-mountain snow	34 cm	–
Mountain snow	42 cm	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm
Snow quality	2.3/10	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–
Open lifts	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	643 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.38×	–
Terrain per lift	2.9 km/lift	13.4 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	2°C	3°C
Maximum temperature	7°C	11°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–
Piste variety	slopes	–
Off-piste	–	–
Cross-country	–	–
Lift network	lifts	–
Mountain restaurants	restaurants	–
Après-ski	apresski	–
Public transport	transit	transit
Best airport transfer	70 min	58 min
Skiing per transfer hour	129 km/h transferclear advantage	69 km/h transfer

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Gerlos

Gerlos

Resort overview

Gerlos

Bad Ischl

Detailed comparison