Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand results will never be the same and are usually determinate on the data within their system but do these differences seem about on point? These are both submitted using their own data processes and not a raw data upload.
Ancestry
47% Europe West
13% ireland/Scotland
13% Europe East
11% Scandinavian
8% Great Britain
Low confidence 3% Finland, 3% European Jewish and 2% Europe South
FTDNA
40% Scandinavian
37% West and Central Europe
17% East Europe
5% Jewish Diaspora (Ashkenazi]
<1% Finland, < 1% African
There's not that huge of a difference outside of the high Scandinavian results that FTDNA has found, but what I'm gathering is that it's due to the heavy European influence of their data. Has anyone else's data been a bit different like mine? FWIW, I uploaded by Ancestry raw data to FTDNA and got the following: 39% Scandinavian, 36% Western Europe, 17% East Europe and 6% Jewish.
I understand results will never be the same and are usually determinate on the data within their system but do these differences seem about on point? These are both submitted using their own data processes and not a raw data upload.
Ancestry
47% Europe West
13% ireland/Scotland
13% Europe East
11% Scandinavian
8% Great Britain
Low confidence 3% Finland, 3% European Jewish and 2% Europe South
FTDNA
40% Scandinavian
37% West and Central Europe
17% East Europe
5% Jewish Diaspora (Ashkenazi]
<1% Finland, < 1% African
There's not that huge of a difference outside of the high Scandinavian results that FTDNA has found, but what I'm gathering is that it's due to the heavy European influence of their data. Has anyone else's data been a bit different like mine? FWIW, I uploaded by Ancestry raw data to FTDNA and got the following: 39% Scandinavian, 36% Western Europe, 17% East Europe and 6% Jewish.
I think those results are pretty consistent.....more consistent than mine.
I have similar problem with "Scandinavian" categories. Ancestry gave me 1%, MyHeritage says 37%. I have possibly one or two Swedish ancestors in my tree in the early 1800s.
I think GEDmatch is the best of all. They have multiple admix. tools you can use, and most of these use more inclusive geographic descriptors like "Atlantic," "Baltic" etc. which makes more sense, IMO, than trying to guess which ethnicity that borders the Atlantic ocean includes your ancestors.
I think those results are pretty consistent.....more consistent than mine.
I have similar problem with "Scandinavian" categories. Ancestry gave me 1%, MyHeritage says 37%. I have possibly one or two Swedish ancestors in my tree.
And I feel like the 49% could be closer to right based on the research I have st this point. That’s interesting that I’m not the only one that has a big difference between ancestry and others.
I understand results will never be the same and are usually determinate on the data within their system but do these differences seem about on point? These are both submitted using their own data processes and not a raw data upload.
Ancestry
47% Europe West
13% ireland/Scotland
13% Europe East
11% Scandinavian
8% Great Britain
Low confidence 3% Finland, 3% European Jewish and 2% Europe South
FTDNA
40% Scandinavian
37% West and Central Europe
17% East Europe
5% Jewish Diaspora (Ashkenazi]
<1% Finland, < 1% African
There's not that huge of a difference outside of the high Scandinavian results that FTDNA has found, but what I'm gathering is that it's due to the heavy European influence of their data. Has anyone else's data been a bit different like mine? FWIW, I uploaded by Ancestry raw data to FTDNA and got the following: 39% Scandinavian, 36% Western Europe, 17% East Europe and 6% Jewish.
Good to know you only had a 1% different in any given category between the upload and their own test - I've always said the difference would be negligible and it looks like it is.
My results between Ancestry and FTDNA are now fairly similar (in the past they weren't) but my other family members vary between the two companies much more. You can see all of our comparison here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...sW3Et4/pubhtml
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
