Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Aosta is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 70/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Antagnod is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Aosta

60/100

Why

Aosta is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 70/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Antagnod is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Stale evidenceUpdated 1 d ago

Structural fit score: 60/100.

Supporting data are stale; treat the ranking as provisional.

AlternativeAntagnod

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

Aosta

Large-domain explorerEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Antagnod. solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 70/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Aosta leads Antagnod Snow reliability +5.1 pts and Terrain fit +4.5 pts

Snow reliability +5.1Terrain fit +4.5Access -4.1Snow now -2.4

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

Strongest alternativeAntagnod

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

What could change the resultIncrease access weight from 12 to 21 and Antagnod becomes the leading option.

Lead margin3.0pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

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.

Lowest-regret optionAntagnod · 93% 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.

AccessAntagnod

Increase access weight from 12 to 21 and Antagnod becomes the leading option.

12 → 21

SnowAntagnod

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 7 and Antagnod becomes the leading option.

24 → 7

ScaleAntagnod

Increase scale weight from 16 to 79 and Antagnod becomes the leading option.

16 → 79

Why Aosta leads Antagnod · 3.0 pts

Snow+5.1 pts

Access-4.1 pts

Lift system+2.7 pts

Current opportunity-2.4 pts

Terrain+2.0 pts

Scale-0.4 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.

Aosta

#1 · Pila · Italy

Decision60/100

Fit60/100

Now0/100

Quality6.2/10

Now00 cm freshReliability7070/100Terrain6363/100Access26153 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.

Fit60.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision60.2/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow70/100 · 73% evidence 16.7 / 24.0 pts

Terrain67/100 · 80% evidence 14.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale80/100 · 100% evidence 12.8 / 16.0 pts

Lift system45/100 · 68% evidence 6.3 / 14.0 pts

Access26/100 · 68% evidence 3.2 / 12.0 pts

Family & value54/100 · 41% evidence 6.5 / 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 · 64/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area70 km · 1,200 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m73%Best transfer153 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 63/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Good reliability match · 70/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Antagnod

#2 · Monte Rosa Ski · Italy

Decision57/100

Fit63/100

Now18/100

Quality7.5/10

Now1854 cm upperReliability5656/100Terrain6565/100Access7093 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.

Fit63.387% weight Now17.913% weight Decision57.2/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow56/100 · 73% evidence 13.4 / 24.0 pts

Terrain67/100 · 80% evidence 14.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale96/100 · 100% evidence 15.3 / 16.0 pts

Lift system30/100 · 68% evidence 4.2 / 14.0 pts

Access70/100 · 68% evidence 8.4 / 12.0 pts

Family & value61/100 · 41% evidence 7.3 / 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.

Mountain snow54 cm 7.7 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow60 cm 7.6 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow54 cm 2.6 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 66/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area132 km · 2,063 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer93 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 41% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.

Strengths

Good terrain match · 65/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 56/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Arpy

#3 · · Italy

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	AostaPila	AntagnodMonte Rosa Ski	ArpyItaly
Assessment
Decision score	60/100	57/100	–
Structural Fit	60/100	63/100	–
Current opportunity	0/100	18/100clear advantage	–
Overall quality	6.2/10	7.5/10clear advantage	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	58/100	55/100	–
Typical daytime high	3°C	2°C	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-3°C	-5°C	–
Rating	7.3/10	7.2/10	–
Area size class	50–100 km	100–150 km	–
Ability profile	advanced	advanced	–
Price class	avg	low	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	70 km	132 kmclear advantage	–
Lowest point	1,540 mclear advantage	1,212 m	–
Highest point	2,740 m	3,275 mclear advantage	–
Vertical range	1,200 m	2,063 mclear advantage	–
Blue pistes	16%	22%	–
Red pistes	73%	67%	–
Black pistes	11%	11%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	73%clear advantage	0%	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%	–
Piste-mix diversity	70/100	76/100	–
Slope-angle diversity	49/100clear advantage	33/100	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	5%	2%	–
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 below typical-41% vs average · 5th percentile	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	Well above typical+217% vs average · 100th percentile	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	60 cm	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	54 cm	–
Mountain snow	–	54 cm	–
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	372 pph/kmclear advantage	266 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.29×	0.24×	–
Terrain per lift	5.8 km/lift	6.3 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	7°C	-2°C	3°C
Maximum temperature	10°C	2°C	7°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–	–
Piste variety	–	slopes	–
Off-piste	offpiste	offpiste	–
Cross-country	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	–
Public transport	–	transit	–
Best airport transfer	153 min	93 minclear advantage	–
Skiing per transfer hour	27 km/h transfer	85 km/h transferclear advantage	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Aosta

Aosta

Resort overview

Aosta

Antagnod

Arpy

Detailed comparison