Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Isola 2000 narrowly leads because of solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Auron is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Isola 2000

65/100

Why

Isola 2000 narrowly leads because of solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Auron is the strongest alternative. 3 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 1 option have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 24 h ago

Structural fit score: 65/100.

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

AlternativeAuron

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

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

Isola 2000

Family progression baseLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Auron. solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.

Why Isola 2000 leads Auron Snow reliability +2.7 pts

Snow reliability +2.7Terrain fit -0.9Access -0.5

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

Strongest alternativeAuron

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

What could change the resultReduce snow weight from 24 to 11 and Auron becomes the leading option.

Lead margin1.3pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

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

Evidence confidence77%

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.

SnowAuron

Reduce snow weight from 24 to 11 and Auron becomes the leading option.

24 → 11

TerrainAuron

Increase terrain weight from 22 to 44 and Auron becomes the leading option.

22 → 44

AccessAuron

Increase access weight from 12 to 45 and Auron becomes the leading option.

12 → 45

Lift systemGreolieres les Neiges

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 70 and Greolieres les Neiges becomes the leading option.

14 → 70

Why Isola 2000 leads Auron · 1.3 pts

Snow+2.7 pts

Terrain-1.5 pts

Access-0.5 pts

Family & value+0.5 pts

Lift system+0.3 pts

Scale-0.2 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.

Isola 2000

#1 · Isola 2000 · France

Decision65/100

Fit65/100

Now8/100

Quality8.5/10

Now84 cm freshReliability7474/100Terrain6262/100Access61108 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.

Fit65.0100% weight Now8.00% weight Decision65.0/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow74/100 · 73% evidence 17.8 / 24.0 pts

Terrain69/100 · 80% evidence 15.1 / 22.0 pts

Scale77/100 · 100% evidence 12.4 / 16.0 pts

Lift system15/100 · 68% evidence 2.1 / 14.0 pts

Access61/100 · 68% evidence 7.3 / 12.0 pts

Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 10.4 / 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 snow4 cm 8.0 / 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 useSnow-first trips · 68/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area120 km · 803 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m92%Best transfer108 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 62/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Auron

#2 · Auron · France

Decision64/100

Fit64/100

Now0/100

Quality9.5/10

Now00 cm freshReliability6363/100Terrain6464/100Access65102 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.

Fit63.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision63.7/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow63/100 · 73% evidence 15.1 / 24.0 pts

Terrain75/100 · 80% evidence 16.6 / 22.0 pts

Scale79/100 · 100% evidence 12.6 / 16.0 pts

Lift system13/100 · 68% evidence 1.8 / 14.0 pts

Access65/100 · 68% evidence 7.8 / 12.0 pts

Family & value82/100 · 41% evidence 9.9 / 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.

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 useAdvanced skiing · 67/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area135 km · 850 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m42%Best transfer102 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 64/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
Solid reliability match · 63/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Greolieres les Neiges

#3 · Greolieres les Neiges · France

Decision51/100

Fit51/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability3838/100Terrain5555/100

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.

Fit50.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision50.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

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

Snow38/100 · 37% evidence 10.3 / 27.3 pts

Terrain54/100 · 44% evidence 13.5 / 25.0 pts

Scale47/100 · 100% evidence 8.5 / 18.2 pts

Lift system42/100 · 68% evidence 6.7 / 15.9 pts

Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.4 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

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 typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 58/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area19 km · 400 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 55/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Mixed reliability match · 38/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

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	Isola 2000Isola 2000	AuronAuron	Greolieres les NeigesGreolieres les Neiges
Assessment
Decision score	65/100	64/100	51/100
Structural Fit	65/100	64/100	51/100
Current opportunity	8/100clear advantage	0/100	0/100
Overall quality	8.5/10	9.5/10clear advantage	–
Recommendation confidence	Medium	Medium	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	76/100clear advantage	55/100	16/100
Typical daytime high	0°Cclear advantage	4°C	10°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	-6°Cclear advantage	-4°C	1°C
Rating	7.4/10clear advantage	6.5/10	6.5/10
Area size class	100–150 km	100–150 km	20 km or less
Ability profile	novice	intermediate	intermediate
Price class	low	avg	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	120 km	135 km	19 km
Lowest point	1,800 mclear advantage	1,600 m	1,400 m
Highest point	2,603 mclear advantage	2,450 m	1,800 m
Vertical range	803 m	850 m	400 m
Blue pistes	63%	43%	47%
Red pistes	29%	33%	42%
Black pistes	8%	24%clear advantage	10%
Terrain above 2,000 m	92%clear advantage	42%	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	0%	0%	–
Piste-mix diversity	78/100	97/100clear advantage	87/100
Slope-angle diversity	65/100	57/100	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	10%clear advantage	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	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	–	–
Mountain snow	–	–	–
Fresh snow	4 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Snow quality	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	191 pph/km	197 pph/km	386 pph/kmclear advantage
Lift-system coverage	0.16×	0.13×	0.31×clear advantage
Terrain per lift	6.0 km/lift	8.4 km/lift	2.1 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	1°C	-3°C	6°C
Maximum temperature	7°C	8°C	11°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–	–
Piste variety	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	restaurants	restaurants	–
Après-ski	apresski	apresski	–
Public transport	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	108 min	102 min	–
Skiing per transfer hour	67 km/h transfer	79 km/h transfer	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Isola 2000

Isola 2000

Resort overview

Isola 2000

Auron

Greolieres les Neiges

Detailed comparison