Ancestry, FTDNA, GedMatch. all different

[JerryS.]

Ancestry, FTDNA, and Gedmatch all show me with the same stuff, but the percentages are considerably way off from each other. I used Ancestry for the DNA test.

*** AncestryDNA shows me as 63% British, 27% Western European, 5% Scandinavian, 2% Italian.

*** The raw data from Ancestry loaded to FTDNA shows me as 0%British, 62% Western/Central European, 31% Scandinavian, 6% Italian.

*** The raw data from Ancestry loaded to Gedmatch shows me as 50% Western European, 10% Eastern European, 0% Scandinavian and 37% Italian (less than 3% traces from NW and E. Africa).

my known heritage is Bremen Germany came here in the mid 1800s, Kent England came here in the early 1800s, and Calabria Italy came her in 1907 exactly.

Each format shows the correct regions but the percents are quite different from each other, especially the Scandinavian and Italian.

Gedmatch is the most correct as I know of for my family.

Is this a result of different population sample pools used by FT and Ancestry genealogist? While Gedmatch uses the science of the chromosome breakdown?

[Biblioteque]

Yes, there is not a "standardization" in the industry. They tend to use different reference populations, algorithms and chips; therefore they get slightly different results.

There are some nay-sayers who say the BGA (Biogeographical Analysis) should be considered "entertainment value". Depends on whom you ask.

Originally, I, too, agonized over these differences.

[JerryS.]

Yes, it is troubling. I used Ancestry DNA as the test mechanism, and then loaded the raw DNA data to Gedmatch and FTDNA for the calculating module. I used Dodecad V3 as the model with Gedmatch and it is surprising accurate from what I know of my ancestors. FTDNA and AncestryDNA not so much.

It is my understanding that Gedmatch uses chromosome science, not ethnicity estimates from genealogists like Ancestry and FTDNA.