Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Hauser Kaibling narrowly leads because of good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 49/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Valberg is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Effectively tied

Hauser Kaibling

56/100

Why

Hauser Kaibling narrowly leads because of good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 49/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Valberg is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier.

Mixed evidenceUpdated 19 h ago

Structural fit score: 63/100.

AlternativeValberg

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

Would change ifA material forecast shift or a different priority profile could change the ranking.

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Hauser Kaibling

Scale-led destinationLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Valberg. good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 49/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Hauser Kaibling leads Valberg Terrain fit +5.2 pts and Snow now +1.8 pts

Terrain fit +5.2Access -5.2Snow now +1.8Snow reliability -1.5

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

Strongest alternativeValberg

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

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 12 and Valberg 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 1–1.

Evidence confidence75%

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 systemValberg

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 12 and Valberg becomes the leading option.

14 → 12

AccessValberg

Increase access weight from 12 to 14 and Valberg becomes the leading option.

12 → 14

Family & valueValberg

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 15 and Valberg becomes the leading option.

12 → 15

ScaleValberg

Reduce scale weight from 16 to 11 and Valberg becomes the leading option.

16 → 11

Why Hauser Kaibling leads Valberg · 0.4 pts

Lift system+6.0 pts

Access-5.2 pts

Family & value-2.6 pts

Current opportunity+1.8 pts

Snow-1.5 pts

Scale+1.3 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.

Hauser Kaibling

#1 · 4 Berge skischaukel · Austria

Decision56/100

Fit63/100

Now13/100

Quality7.4/10

Now1350 cm upperReliability4949/100Terrain7575/100Access23168 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.

Fit62.686% weight Now13.014% weight Decision55.8/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow49/100 · 73% evidence 11.7 / 24.0 pts

Terrain60/100 · 80% evidence 13.1 / 22.0 pts

Scale92/100 · 100% evidence 14.8 / 16.0 pts

Lift system82/100 · 68% evidence 11.4 / 14.0 pts

Access23/100 · 68% evidence 2.7 / 12.0 pts

Family & value74/100 · 41% evidence 8.9 / 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 snow50 cm 7.1 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow42 cm 2.0 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeScale-led destinationBest useAdvanced skiing · 65/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area123 km · 1,287 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer168 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Mixed reliability match · 49/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Valberg

#2 · Beuil Valberg · France

Decision55/100

Fit55/100

Now0/100

Quality5.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4848/100Terrain5757/100Access6399 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.

Fit55.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision55.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow48/100 · 73% evidence 11.6 / 24.0 pts

Terrain49/100 · 80% evidence 10.8 / 22.0 pts

Scale72/100 · 100% evidence 11.5 / 16.0 pts

Lift system27/100 · 68% evidence 3.8 / 14.0 pts

Access63/100 · 68% evidence 7.5 / 12.0 pts

Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 10.3 / 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.

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 · 61/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area90 km · 608 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m1%Best transfer99 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 57/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Mixed reliability match · 48/100 — 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	Hauser Kaibling4 Berge skischaukel	ValbergBeuil Valberg
Assessment
Decision score	56/100	55/100
Structural Fit	63/100clear advantage	55/100
Current opportunity	13/100clear advantage	0/100
Overall quality	7.4/10clear advantage	5.0/10
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	73/100clear advantage	37/100
Typical daytime high	2°Cclear advantage	6°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–
Typical overnight low	-5°Cclear advantage	-2°C
Rating	6.8/10clear advantage	6.5/10
Area size class	100–150 km	50–100 km
Ability profile	advanced	intermediate
Price class	low	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	123 kmclear advantage	90 km
Lowest point	728 m	1,412 mclear advantage
Highest point	2,015 m	2,020 m
Vertical range	1,287 mclear advantage	608 m
Blue pistes	38%	50%
Red pistes	56%	39%
Black pistes	7%	11%
Terrain above 2,000 m	0%	1%
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%
Piste-mix diversity	80/100	87/100
Slope-angle diversity	25/100	20/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	1%	0%
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	30 cm	–
Mid-mountain snow	42 cm	–
Mountain snow	50 cm	–
Fresh snow	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	689 pph/kmclear advantage	308 pph/km
Lift-system coverage	0.44×clear advantage	0.16×
Terrain per lift	2.6 km/lift	3.9 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	0°C	9°C
Maximum temperature	15°C	14°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–
Piste variety	–	slopes
Off-piste	–	–
Cross-country	crosscountry	–
Lift network	lifts	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–
Après-ski	apresski	–
Public transport	transit	–
Best airport transfer	168 min	99 minclear advantage
Skiing per transfer hour	44 km/h transfer	55 km/h transfer

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Hauser Kaibling

Hauser Kaibling

Resort overview

Hauser Kaibling

Valberg

Detailed comparison