New update (2023)

[Gray Fox]

For Caucasian Americans with colonial ancestry, as one goes further back in time, additional generations; the more English it becomes.  Up to the mid 1600s it was mostly English settlers, then in the 1680s more immigrants from Scotland and Ireland began to arrive, followed by Germans.  I failed to account for this in earlier estimates, and under estimated my English ancestry.

My previous estimate wrongly assumed my unknown Colonial ancestry would be similar to my known colonial/early US ancestry.  Obviously you typically know more about your more recent ancestry so that was skewing my estimate.

My new estimate does a percentage for each generation, and as expected, the earlier generations known ancestry is increasingly English.

Yes, but the later arriving groups didn't really mix with the older established groups in the Northeast or Tidewater regions. So you could say that for Americans with roots to those areas, but I don't think it really applies as much to those who arrived later and rarely mixed with the older, established groups. I'm not saying later arriving groups didn't also have English ancestry, but it was from a different area of England. The northeast had stronger ties to East Anglia and the tidewater had stronger ties to Southwest England, while the southern backcountry had stronger ties to Northern England/Borders.

[JFWinstone]

Mine

England & NWE 32%                                          (31%-55%)

Sweden & Denmark 16%                                    (0%-20%)

Wales 14%                                                        (0%-18%)

Scotland 12%                                                    (0%-20%)

Central & Eastern China 6%                                (0%-8%)

Southern Bantu Peoples 4%                                (0%-7%)

Norway 4%                                                       (0%-6%)

Cameroon, Congo and Western Bantu Peoples 3% (0%-6%)

Southern India 3%                                             (0%-3%)

Eastern Bantu Peoples 2%                                  (0%-6%)

Khoisan, Aka and Mbuti Peoples                           (0%-1%)

Southern China 1%                                            (0%-7%)

Mainland Southeast Asia 1%                               (0%-4%)

Central & Southern Philippines 1%                       (0%-2%)

Mum

England & NWE 48%                                          (39%-52%)
Central & Eastern China 14%                               (4%-18%)
Southern Bantu Peoples 13%                               (4%-16%)
Southern India 9%                                             (3%-10%)
Cameroon, Congo and Western Bantu Peoples 4% (0%-7%)
Central & Southern Philippines 3%                       (0%-4%)
Eastern Bantu Peoples 2%                                  (0%-5%)
Southern China 2%                                            (0%-8%)
Germanic Europe 2%                                         (0%-30%)
Mainland Southeast Asia 1%                               (0%-5%)
Northern Philippines 1%                                     (0%-3%)
Wales 1%                                                         (0%-2%)

[R.Rocca]

This is from AncestryDNA V3. My paper trail is 62.5%=Italy & 37.5%=Spain but a known adoption could swing it closer to what these numbers show:

55% = S.Italy+N.Italy+Sardinia+Greece+Albania+Aegean Islands+Eastern European Roma
45% = Spain+Basque+Portugal. 



By the way, I see a lot of people getting this new Eastern European Roma when they have no known Roma ancestry, so I assume it is some kind of noise that has not yet been properly calibrated.

[Webb]

I am fairly lucky that I have both a paternal uncle and maternal uncle who have also tested, which gives me a bit of confirmation on which ancestry I get from which side.

Me:
England & Northwestern Europe
37%
Germanic Europe
26%
Scotland
16%
Sweden & Denmark
10%
Ireland
6%
Norway
5%


Paternal Uncle:
England & Northwestern Europe
55%
Scotland
19%
Sweden & Denmark
11%
Ireland
8%
Wales
7%

Maternal Uncle:
England & Northwestern Europe38%
38%
Germanic Europe
41%
Scotland
8%
Sweden & Denmark
3%
Ireland
3%
Wales
6%
Baltics
1%

My dad has one distant line that is either Dutch or Scandinavian but all of the rest of his paper trail is British Isles, from all over. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, which is pretty common for most of the families that pushed west from the Augusta, Virginia area into Kentucky and Tennessee. The three main families, Maguire, Jones, and Nickell, intermarried many times over, resulting in a number of first to second cousin marriages. It reminds me of the Ray Stevens song, "I am my own grandpa". My mom's father had three grandparents born in Germany/Bavaria and one grandparent was of Colonial British stock. My mom's mother was almost half Colonial British and Early Colonial German settlers from the Northern Virginia area.

[Cascio]

Is Ancestry more reliable for ancestry composition than 23andMe?

[AimSmall]

Is Ancestry more reliable for ancestry composition than 23andMe?

It's subjective...  only way to know is either comparing their respective results to numerous other results from others, or knowing a great deal about your genealogy and where your ancestors are from and when.  For my results, AncestryDNA seems more accurate, but I find my results with G25 runs with various data sheets provide far more granular accuracy.  Part of the reason we all play so much with G25 and the various data sheets we all share.  Different time periods, more granular data.  They say I'm English... the details show actually more Welsh and Cornwall as an example.

The problem with these tests like the two you mentioned, what time frame are they looking at your ancestors?  300 years ago, where they were living?  500?  1,000?  It's all about context. Are they using modern DNA samples to deduce or using older DNA samples from that time period and area?

My $0.02

[Kale]

Previous estimate - Region - Current Estimate
67% France 62%
16% Scotland 13%
13% England & NW-Europe 19%
4% Sweden & Denmark 4%
0% Ireland 2%

Compare to 23andme
French & German 58.9% (regional matches all French)
British & Irish 20.3% ('highly likely' matches for Scotland/N-Ireland, 'likely' for England)
Broadly NW 8.9%
Iberian 4.9% (no regions)
Italian 3.4% (no regions)
Random under 1% miscellaneous 3.6%

Known ancestry...
Dad = 3/4th French Canadian, 1/8th Alsatian
Mom = All English & Scottish surnames, except for 1/16th French Canadian, and 1/32nd Italian (Naples?).
23andme used to pick up the Italian ancestor showing match by region, guessing the region to be Sicily.
No known Scandinavian, Iberian, or Irish ancestors.

[Riverman]

Is Ancestry more reliable for ancestry composition than 23andMe?

Generally not, 23andMe is most reliable, but some companies are better for specific ethnicities still.

[Cascio]

You may be right but why do I get 96.4pc ITALIAN plus bits of Sardinian and Coptic Egyptian on 23andme while Ancestry.com gives me 87pc Northern Italian with some French;Sardinian; South Italian; English and NW Europe; and Basque?

[AimSmall]

You may be right but why do I get 96.4pc ITALIAN plus bits of Sardinian and Coptic Egyptian on 23andme while Ancestry.com gives me 87pc Northern Italian with some French;Sardinian; South Italian; English and NW Europe; and Basque?

The question would be, what do you know of your heritage/ancestry?  Have you investigated your ancestors to know which values are more accurate?

[Jalisciense]

Is Ancestry more reliable for ancestry composition than 23andMe?

Both are their direct competition between them, so I would say about the reliability depends on the person's ancestry.

[geebee-1015]

Is Ancestry more reliable for ancestry composition than 23andMe?

Certainly not for me.  My parents are German / British & Irish (my father) and British & Irish / Spanish (Menorcan) / Alsatian / French / Indigenous American / Swiss (my mother).  In each case, the ancestries are listed in order of their proportion, but for neither parent is the British & Irish component as much as half.  

Here's what Ancestry claims for me in the latest update:

England & Northwestern Europe 63%
Scotland 20%
Wales 2%
Ireland 1%

Since the total of my British & Irish ancestry is less than half of all my ancestry and is also covered in the Scotland, Wales, and Ireland categories at Ancestry, the bulk of my England & Northwestern Europe cannot simply be "English".  Instead, it seems likely to simply be continental Northwestern Europe.  This is likely where virtually all of my Palatine German ancestry is hidden, plus my Swiss and Alsatian ancestry, and likely also my French ancestry.

I do get 6% Germanic Europe, which is an improvement over two updates ago when I got no Germanic whatsoever.  But, this is at the same time that my daughter gets 10% and it is all attributed to me.  It's worthwhile to note to things:  First, there are more German-origin surnames in my family tree than any others, most of them from the colonial era; and second, my Germanic Europe has a very large range: 0-41%.  A range of this size, in my opinion, is indicative of a greater degree of uncertainty on the part of the algorithm.  My daughter's Germanic Europe has a range of 0-39%, and it is pretty clear that Ancestry has some difficulty distinguishing German and English ancestry for some customers.

I also get 4% France, but it isn't really French.  I have relatively recent ancestry from the island of Menorca, and Ancestry shows all of the Balearic islands as part of the France region.  Both of my maternal grandmother's grandfathers immigrated from there, which should account for much more of my ancestry than just 4%, but I think some of the rest is showing up in different ways.

For example, a new ancestry that has appeared is 1% Eastern European Roma.  Based on where my two Eastern European Roma ancestry segments are showing in Chromosome Painter, this ancestry is likely associated with one of my Menorcan-born 2nd great grandfathers.  (Specifically, my great grandmother's father.)

Also, 1% Finland has shown up for me at Ancestry for a while now.  I don't think it's actually Finnish, but is something that looks to Ancestry's ethnicity analysis like Finnish.

Finally, I get 2% Indigenous Americas - North, which is real and documented in my tree.  Interestingly, the segments identified by Ancestry as IA-North in Chromosome Painter match quite well with my Indigenous American segments in 23andMe's Chromosome Painting.  This is also true of my daughter.  Thankfully, Ancestry's current update also corrected an annoyance of mine with Ancestry.  Previous updates have vacillated in exactly how to label my Indigenous Americas -- sometimes calling it all Indigenous Americas - North as they do now, and sometimes calling some or all of it Indigenous Americas - Mexico.

I wouldn't care all that much except that Ancestry is dead certain that their categories are completely accurate, and all separate and distinct.  But, in the previous update they labeled a single segment as Indigenous Americas - Mexico in the pre-update hack.  Once the actual update was available, they did not show any of this category for me -- apparently because the segment doesn't total 0.5% all by itself.  So in place of IA-M, Ancestry showed "unassigned".

However, I happened to pass this segment on to my daughter.  But for her the segment was labeled as Indigenous Americas - North, so it was added to her total as well as shown in Chromosome Painter.  Same segment, called differently for parent that for child.  (Still called as "Indigenous Americas", but in a different subcategory.  So much for their being completely distinct.)

Overall, I consider 23andMe's analysis better, but in part it's because Ancestry sometimes try to claim more than they can truly support.

[Cascio]

Is Ancestry more reliable for ancestry composition than 23andMe?

Generally not, 23andMe is most reliable, but some companies are better for specific ethnicities still.

You may be right but why do I get 96.4pc ITALIAN plus bits of Sardinian and Coptic Egyptian on 23andme while Ancestry.com gives me 87pc Northern Italian with some French;Sardinian; South Italian; English and NW Europe; and Basque?

The question would be, what do you know of your heritage/ancestry?  Have you investigated your ancestors to know which values are more accurate?

It's confusing.

Professional genealogists have traced my ancestry back to before 1700 though more on the paternal side. Most surnames are typical of Lucca province in NW Tuscany with the occasional outlier like one Emilian surname, and another rarer surname traceable on genealogy sites to the Italian-speaking part of the Grisons (Graubunden).

I'm sure I have no Coptic Egyptian but nor do I have any known English or Basque ancestors.

G25 calculators consistently bring up a trace of North African Berber which may indicate a little Iberian or Iberian-like ancestry rather than French.

One or two per cent Sardinian usually comes up in many g25 calculators for me.

[rmstevens2]

I have found the estimates of my ethnic make-up to be pretty similar from one company to the next. Can't quibble too awful much about any of them.

For me, however, Ancestry's is most accurate, knowing what I do of my pedigree. 23andMe's is the least accurate. FTDNA's is in between but doesn't attempt as much specificity as the other two.

[Riverman]

It will depend on the region of origin as well. For Central European, 23andMe is definitely more accurate. For British people it might be different.