Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Hopfgarten im Brixental is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Montreux is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Recommended

Hopfgarten im Brixental

63/100

Why

Hopfgarten im Brixental is the strongest match because of good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Montreux is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Mixed evidenceUpdated 20 h ago

Structural fit score: 70/100.

AlternativeMontreux

Main uncertaintyMost 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

Hopfgarten im Brixental

Large-domain explorerLow-regret choice

Leads on good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Hopfgarten im Brixental leads Montreux Terrain fit +9.3 pts and Snow now +2.9 pts

Terrain fit +9.3Snow now +2.9Snow reliability -2.3Access +0.6

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

Strongest alternativeMontreux

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

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 58 and Montreux becomes the leading option.

Lead margin10.8pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence73%

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 systemMontreux

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 58 and Montreux becomes the leading option.

14 → 58

Why Hopfgarten im Brixental leads Montreux · 10.8 pts

Family & value+6.3 pts

Scale+5.0 pts

Lift system-3.9 pts

Current opportunity+2.9 pts

Snow-2.3 pts

Terrain+1.9 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.

Hopfgarten im Brixental

#1 · SkiWelt Wilder Kaiser Brixental · Austria

Decision63/100

Fit70/100

Now21/100

Quality5.3/10

Now2180 cm upperReliability4444/100Terrain7575/100Access9553 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.

Fit69.886% weight Now21.014% weight Decision63.2/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow44/100 · 73% evidence 10.5 / 24.0 pts

Terrain64/100 · 80% evidence 14.1 / 22.0 pts

Scale95/100 · 85% evidence 15.2 / 16.0 pts

Lift system61/100 · 68% evidence 8.5 / 14.0 pts

Access95/100 · 68% evidence 11.4 / 12.0 pts

Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 10.0 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 71%

Current-opportunity calculation

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

Mountain snow80 cm 11.4 / 42.9 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts

Valley snow50 cm 6.3 / 22.9 pts

Mid-mountain snow68 cm 3.2 / 11.4 pts

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useFamily trips · 73/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area275 km · 1,249 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer53 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Good terrain match · 75/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Montreux

#2 · Montreux · Switzerland

Decision52/100

Fit52/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability4848/100Terrain5050/100Access7762 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.

Fit52.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision52.4/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow48/100 · 72% evidence 11.4 / 24.0 pts

Terrain47/100 · 43% evidence 10.3 / 22.0 pts

Scale51/100 · 58% evidence 8.1 / 16.0 pts

Lift system80/100 · 8% evidence 11.2 / 14.0 pts

Access77/100 · 68% evidence 9.2 / 12.0 pts

Family & value19/100 · 31% evidence 2.3 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 49%

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 typeBalanced all-rounderBest useShort breaks · 60/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area15 km · – verticalTerrain >2,000 m2%Best transfer62 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 50/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
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	Hopfgarten im BrixentalSkiWelt Wilder Kaiser Brixental	MontreuxMontreux
Assessment
Decision score	63/100clear advantage	52/100
Structural Fit	70/100clear advantage	52/100
Current opportunity	21/100clear advantage	0/100
Overall quality	5.3/10	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	55/100	54/100
Typical daytime high	4°C	5°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–
Typical overnight low	-4°C	-3°C
Rating	7.7/10clear advantage	4.6/10
Area size class	250+ km	20 km or less
Ability profile	intermediate	advanced
Price class	low	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	275 kmclear advantage	15 km
Lowest point	620 m	–
Highest point	1,869 m	1,738 m
Vertical range	1,249 m	–
Blue pistes	42%	0%
Red pistes	44%	100%
Black pistes	14%clear advantage	0%
Terrain above 2,000 m	0%	2%
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%
Piste-mix diversity	91/100	–
Slope-angle diversity	34/100	38/100
Very/extremely steep terrain	1%	4%
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	50 cm	–
Mid-mountain snow	68 cm	–
Mountain snow	80 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	533 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.27×	–
Terrain per lift	3.4 km/lift	1.2 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	11°C	16°C
Maximum temperature	22°C	21°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–
Piste variety	slopes	–
Off-piste	–	–
Cross-country	crosscountry	–
Lift network	lifts	–
Mountain restaurants	restaurants	–
Après-ski	apresski	–
Public transport	transit	–
Best airport transfer	53 min	62 min
Skiing per transfer hour	311 km/h transferclear advantage	15 km/h transfer

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Hopfgarten im Brixental

Hopfgarten im Brixental

Resort overview

Hopfgarten im Brixental

Montreux

Detailed comparison