Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Diedamskopf is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 65/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Hochjoch is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Diedamskopf

80/100

Why

Diedamskopf is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 65/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Hochjoch is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 51 min ago

Strong overall decision score (80/100).

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

AlternativeHochjoch

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

Diedamskopf

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Hochjoch. strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 65/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Diedamskopf leads Hochjoch Terrain fit +4.1 pts and Snow reliability +0.7 pts

Terrain fit +4.1Snow reliability +0.7

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

Strongest alternativeHochjoch

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 3 and Hochjoch becomes the leading option.

Lead margin4.8pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence46%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier3 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 systemHochjoch

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 3 and Hochjoch becomes the leading option.

14 → 3

ScaleHochjoch

Increase scale weight from 16 to 43 and Hochjoch becomes the leading option.

16 → 43

Family & valueHochjoch

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 62 and Hochjoch becomes the leading option.

12 → 62

Why Diedamskopf leads Hochjoch · 4.8 pts

Lift system+6.1 pts

Scale-2.8 pts

Terrain+2.0 pts

Family & value-1.2 pts

Snow+0.7 pts

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

Resort overview

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

Diedamskopf

#1 · Au Schoppernau · Austria

Decision80/100

Fit80/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Reliability6565/100Terrain8585/100

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.

Fit79.5100% weight Now–0% weight Decision79.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow65/100 · 37% evidence 17.6 / 27.3 pts

Terrain87/100 · 44% evidence 21.6 / 25.0 pts

Scale81/100 · 85% evidence 14.7 / 18.2 pts

Lift system97/100 · 8% evidence 15.4 / 15.9 pts

Family & value74/100 · 41% evidence 10.1 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 38%

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 typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 82/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area40 km · 1,240 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 85/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 65/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Family trails the selected-set median by 9 points.

Hochjoch

#2 · Silvretta Montafon · Austria

Decision75/100

Fit75/100

Now–/100

Quality5.8/10

Reliability6262/100Terrain7979/100

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.

Fit74.7100% weight Now–0% weight Decision74.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow62/100 · 73% evidence 16.9 / 27.3 pts

Terrain78/100 · 80% evidence 19.6 / 25.0 pts

Scale96/100 · 100% evidence 17.5 / 18.2 pts

Lift system59/100 · 68% evidence 9.3 / 15.9 pts

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

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 66%

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 typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 77/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area142 km · 1,730 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m32%Current dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Strong terrain match · 79/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 62/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Bielerhohe

#3 · Silvretta Bielerhohe im Montafon · Austria

Decision48/100

Fit48/100

Now–/100

Quality6.5/10

Reliability6464/100Terrain4242/100

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.

Fit48.0100% weight Now–0% weight Decision48.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow64/100 · 37% evidence 17.6 / 27.3 pts

Terrain18/100 · 39% evidence 4.5 / 25.0 pts

Scale15/100 · 85% evidence 2.7 / 18.2 pts

Lift system70/100 · 68% evidence 11.2 / 15.9 pts

Family & value89/100 · 31% evidence 12.1 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 44%

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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 63/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area2 km · 120 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 42/100 — led by strong terrain profile and strong lift-system evidence; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Terrain depth 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	DiedamskopfAu Schoppernau	HochjochSilvretta Montafon	BielerhoheSilvretta Bielerhohe im Montafon
Assessment
Decision score	80/100clear advantage	75/100	48/100
Structural Fit	80/100clear advantage	75/100	48/100
Current opportunity	–	–	–
Overall quality	–	5.8/10	6.5/10clear advantage
Recommendation confidence	Low	Medium	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	70/100	67/100	62/100
Typical daytime high	0°C	2°C	2°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-6°C	-5°C
Rating	7.0/10	7.0/10	7.4/10clear advantage
Area size class	20–50 km	100–150 km	20 km or less
Ability profile	advanced	intermediate	novice
Price class	avg	avg	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	40 km	142 kmclear advantage	2 km
Lowest point	850 m	700 m	1,910 mclear advantage
Highest point	2,090 m	2,430 mclear advantage	2,030 m
Vertical range	1,240 m	1,730 mclear advantage	120 m
Blue pistes	33%	42%	100%
Red pistes	45%	35%	0%
Black pistes	23%	22%	0%
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	32%	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	0%	–
Piste-mix diversity	97/100	97/100	–
Slope-angle diversity	–	56/100	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	5%	–
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	–	–	–
Snow quality	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	1 cm	1 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	–	475 pph/km	670 pph/kmclear advantage
Lift-system coverage	–	0.29×	1.05×clear advantage
Terrain per lift	1.0 km/lift	4.1 km/lift	1.0 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	-5°C	5°C	-6°C
Maximum temperature	2°C	13°C	2°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	family	–
Piste variety	–	slopes	–
Off-piste	–	offpiste	–
Cross-country	–	–	–
Lift network	–	lifts	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	apresski	–
Public transport	–	transit	–
Best airport transfer	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	–	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Diedamskopf

Diedamskopf

Resort overview

Diedamskopf

Hochjoch

Bielerhohe

Detailed comparison