Aosta
Effectively tied with Livigno. 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—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeLivigno
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Livigno is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 22 and Livigno becomes the leading option.
Difference between the first and second option.
The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 2–2.
Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.
Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
1 option is dominated on commonly available dimensions.
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.
Increase family & value weight from 12 to 22 and Livigno becomes the leading option.
Reduce scale weight from 16 to 3 and Livigno becomes the leading option.
Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 9 and Livigno becomes the leading option.
Increase lift system weight from 14 to 28 and Livigno becomes the leading option.
Why Aosta leads Livigno · 0.9 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.