PDA

View Full Version : How does AncestryDNA compare to Family Finder



Peter MacDonald
10-05-2015, 11:51 PM
Just curious if anyone has tested with both AncestryDNA compare to Family Finder? If so I would be interested to hear your comparison.

Baltimore1937
10-06-2015, 12:16 AM
Ancestry is more fun.

Peter MacDonald
10-06-2015, 12:59 AM
By more fun do you mean a better interface and/or database for your matches?

crossover
10-06-2015, 02:01 AM
ftdna has chromosome browser, but my origins is less accurate than ancestrydna

Baltimore1937
10-07-2015, 02:20 AM
By more fun do you mean a better interface and/or database for your matches?

It combines the traditional genealogy with the autosomal findings (assuming you paid for both). I wish they would've retained the mtDNA haplogroups, though, for tracing one's direct maternal line.

botoole60611
12-04-2015, 07:06 PM
Having tested on all three platforms, I will say that Ancestry is the best if you are looking more for family trees and that sort of matching. And thier database is apparently larger.

I have about 6,000 matches on Ancestry, and have broken down some major brick walls and discovered family indiscretions. However, to actually compare chromosomes, you will have to get your matches to agree to upload thier raw data to a third party site, such as GEDMatch.

I have over 1,000 matches on FTDNA, and FTDNA gives direct access to chromosome comparisons. I hate the trees on FTDNA.

So, for me, I recommend both, if you can afford it.

leonardo
12-06-2015, 10:36 PM
ftdna has chromosome browser, but my origins is less accurate than ancestrydna

My thoughts. The Ancestrydna ethnic results are more accurate for me.

leonardo
12-06-2015, 10:37 PM
Having tested on all three platforms, I will say that Ancestry is the best if you are looking more for family trees and that sort of matching. And thier database is apparently larger.

I have about 6,000 matches on Ancestry, and have broken down some major brick walls and discovered family indiscretions. However, to actually compare chromosomes, you will have to get your matches to agree to upload thier raw data to a third party site, such as GEDMatch.

I have over 1,000 matches on FTDNA, and FTDNA gives direct access to chromosome comparisons. I hate the trees on FTDNA.

So, for me, I recommend both, if you can afford it.

I would agree with this as well, completely. FTDNA's family trees are near impossible to navigate. This is the time theses tests are on sale, making them affordable for many.

geebee
12-07-2015, 12:31 AM
I've testing with all three -- 23andMe, FTDNA, and AncestryDNA -- and each has its advantages. Ancestry may have the largest database, and certainly have more (and more expansive) trees. I'm currently a member of 12 "DNA Circles", each of which is centered on a particular shared ancestor (or probable ancestor). One of the worst drawbacks to Ancestry, however -- in my view, at least -- is the lack of any sort of direct chromosome matching.

A plus to FTDNA is that you not only can compare your genome to other relatives who've tested at FTDNA, but also to some who have tested at either Ancestry or 23andMe. The only stipulation is that they have to have uploaded their data file to FTDNA ... and this option is not available for 23andMe's newest testees, who are on the v4 platform. In addition, you can select the minimum segment size for reporting a matching segment. The default is 5 cM, but you can go as low as 1 cM or as high as 10 cM.

23andMe also gives you exact segment matching, but one concern is that there are a lot of changes underway there. I'm not sure how it's all going to fall out. Plus, if you test now your results will be on the v4 chip, which cannot be uploaded to FTDNA.

All things considered, I would still do all three if I could. But if I could do only two, I'd do Ancestry and FTDNA -- or maybe do Ancestry only, and upload the file (for a fee) to FTDNA.

Finally, I prefer both Ancestry and 23andMe's ethnicity analyses over FTDNA's "My Origins".

geebee
12-07-2015, 04:09 AM
I added additional information, but it disappeared. So here's trying again:

As I mentioned in the previous post, one drawback of AncestryDNA is the inability to visualize the specific matching segments. Nor are you even told what the percentage of sharing is, or how many segments are shared. Instead you're merely given a confidence estimate -- such as "extremely high", or "moderate".

In addition, though FTDNA at least has a chromosome browser that lets you see where you and your "cousins" have shared segments, neither company provides a chromosome-by-chromosome breakdown of its ethnicity analysis. (Unlike 23andMe.)

However, at AncestryDNA I can at least see what ethnicity or ethnicities are reported for my matches -- though not on a percentage basis. Even "Trace Regions" are included, so I can tell if -- for example -- particular matches have Native American ancestry.

At FTDNA, it's only possible to know this information for your top three "global ethnicities". For example, my top three are European (94%), Central/South Asian (3%), and Middle Eastern (2%). I can rank those sharing with me by any of these, but not by my fourth ethnicity of "East Asian" (1%). So if some of my matches have East Asian ancestry, there's no direct way for me to know it. (Or if, say, they instead have Native American ancestry.)

Fortunately, I have something of a workaround. I was able to upload the 23andMe data file for one of my two brothers. (The other brother was tested on the v4 chip.) His top three global ethnicities at FTDNA are European (94%), Middle Eastern (4%), and New World (1%). That means I can rank those sharing with him by their New World percentage, and as it turns out many of these are also sharing with me.

Unfortunately, I still have no way to see where each ethnicity is reported to be on each chromosome. This is one of the advantages of 23andMe's Ancestry Composition -- and it's a feature I wish AncestryDNA and FTDNA would adopt.