Since the OP seems to have zeroed in on a choice, I'll ask if you'd elaborate on this statement.
I'm currently hashing my way through the Monster/Kore debate.......
Sure. I'll try to make it simple. I'm lucky to have a lot of skis in the ski room. I have a race background, and physically, I'm pretty solid. A fit 5'10", 210 lbs. Most of my skis days until a couple of years ago were in New England....hence my icon. I tend to ski with what you would describe as power rather than finesse. I've skied for all but two of my 60+ years, and I was what you would call an "elite" {I hate that word} racer in the day.
I have some connections with Blizzard, Head and Nordica. If I were buying skis ant close to retail, I might broaden my horizons, as I have had a lot of great ski days on other brands. Stockli, Fischer, Kastle.
I like a damp, heavy ski, with as traditional a shape as they make, and much traditional camber as possible. Exceptions are my "big" skis, which frankly spend more time out West. If I catch a rare fresh snow day {I almost hesitate to say powder} at home, I'm often on one of my Swiss Army knives......Bonafide or Enforcer.
When I'm on buffed, groomed, cruisers, here I tend to gravitate, I'm almost always on a 180cm Head I.speed Pro. When the snow is crudded up, leftover, and pretty dense, but not so deep, along with some groomed out, etc. I am almost always on a 184cm Monster88. The ski is amazingly solid. It blows through anything and it stays ON the snow. Powerful, yes. Playful, not so much. I love them. I also have a pair of Monster 98's.also a 184cm, and they live out west. Same use, but the snow is different, space more wide open, etc. No bigger Monsters for me.
My big skis are Blizzard Bocacious of various lengths. The ones that get the most use are the 186cm first generation. Even in bottomless, I like metal, and I ski as others say. "powerfully."
So this spring I was handed a pair of Kore 93's to try. The ski frankly surprised me, a lot. I was very skeptical as it's so light. But wow, the ski can do so much. It's got a really interesting flex. It has a much softer tip and tail than a Monster, and the tapered tip is entirely different. But the "middle of the ski" has some beef. For me, It does not truly carve like a Monster, But I guarantee that the majority of people skiing it will feel like it carves like a champ. What surprised me is that it still wants speed to carve. But not as much as a Monster.
In a one word contrast, considering that both are expert level skis, Monster is the power ski. Kore has a great dose of playfulness.
Monster wants to be grounded on the snow. Kore will be playful off the surface. Monsters do no like moguls, The Kore in my two runs was much more fun. In tight spaces, I would say Kore. Busting through most stuff...Kore feels like it will work well. Monster excels. To be honest....real carving on harder surfaces, IMO, Monster by a wide margin.
The lightness of the ski intrigues me. I have skied the 105 one day. It was pretty darn good and versatile. For me it could never be a firm snow, or in bounds all mountain ski. In 8" plus of fresh, I think it could be a lot of fun. I'm interested in trying a pair with tech bindings, and some skins. It just "feels" like the light weight could be a huge plus on the way up, and the ski could be really great on the way down. I'd love to try one. But I will not try to get one just to do that.
Dunno if that helps or confuses things? Very personal opinions. I have had fiends who, without asking my opinion, have bought "my skis", and then realized that they were not for them. The Monster is a pretty versatile ski, for the right guy. I think the Kore will appeal to a wider audience, and be a better tool for most in a wider range of terrain and conditions.
If you are considering either, and have not skied them, I would demo BOTH.