IMO you need a beacon to make bridger worth it and you have to be willing (and in shape enough) to hike every day. If you don't put in the work or focus on park Bridger is not worth it, but if you have a beacon and hike the terrain is better and more technical than at Big Sky. Big Sky/ Moonlight have better lift systems and are easier to ski laps, but I thought that the big mountain skiing was, well, boring. There are steep chutes and trees and not much else- there's some rowdy terrain around Big Chute, but its not worth having to sign out with patrol every damn time you want to ski something hard. Also I found that the people at Bridger are a lot more chill than at Big Sky, people focus on skiing instead of their image.
Big Sky is definitely better than Bridger in some areas (for example the slushman's shit show). Talking with east cost kids this year it seemed like Big Sky was more what they wanted in a western resort- good lifts, a cool mountain with plenty of hard terrain, less crowded, and a decent park. But if you like more technical skiing Bridger is one of the best mountains out there, and the system they have on the ridge of not closing any areas is awesome, much better than resorts like Jackson or Alta.
