Kals am Grossglockner
Effectively tied with Goms. good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, solid reliability match · 62/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeGoms
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Goms is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
What could change the resultIncrease family & value weight from 12 to 17 and Goms becomes the leading option.
Difference between the first and second option.
The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.
Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.
Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
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.
Increase family & value weight from 12 to 17 and Goms becomes the leading option.
Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 17 and Goms becomes the leading option.
Increase lift system weight from 14 to 22 and Goms becomes the leading option.
Reduce scale weight from 16 to 4 and Goms becomes the leading option.
Why Kals am Grossglockner leads Goms · 1.7 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.