What do you base that on?
I base it on the rough rule of thumb "200 cm = 100 %," regarding how "urgently" I recommend a basement or advise against omitting one.
If the terrain is sloped, you practically have to put walls under the house (I probably don’t need to add anything to the illustrative explanation by ). As soon as these walls are as high as a basement, you basically have a basement. Although it is filled with earth and cannot be used, and it has no interior walls either, it does not become significantly cheaper because of that.
At one meter height of these factual "basement exterior walls," I estimate (of course roughly) about half the cost compared to having built "with a basement." In other words, from about two meters height, the savings of a "no-basement" are, contrary to the rule of thumb, not quite zero, but so insignificant that it’s not worth it. At least when you factor in a "basement replacement room," the formula should actually hold completely.
At the moment, it seems to be trendy to want to fill the entire hillside plot all around up to the highest point with earth, and to draw these "basement walls" along two or three sides at the property boundaries accordingly. From my point of view, this is pretty much the height of folly.
Hillside plots don’t only have disadvantages, but also have their own charms. Unfortunately, more and more people are currently rushing towards hillside plots who cannot appreciate them and have no idea other than to "flatten" them.
But there are certainly alternatives to my view "the steeper the slope, the more basement": also has a "slope," namely toward "split level." Around 1980, that was very fashionable: dividing floor areas so that the "halves" are offset by half a floor. Or in other words: you attach half of the floor basically to the intermediate landing of the stairs. This works ideally with two equally long stair flights, so with a terrain difference (related to the floor plan) of about 120 to 160 cm.