GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-01 > 1233185177
From: "Michael L. Hébert" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] OT Possibly, comparing companies
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:26:17 -0600
Since only one company that I know of offers a 33-marker test, I assume that
company B is Ancestry.com. They do some "creative" counting in their marker
counts. They include 3 markers (DYS19b/394b, DYS464e, DYS464f) that are
rarely found in testees and not included in the counts of other companies
although these other companies do test for and report these markers if
found. So, company B's (FTDNA) 37-marker test is really a 40-marker test in
Ancestry's count methodology. I have a company marker comparison chart at
http://www.gendna.net/ydnacomp.htm. FTDNA offers the most bang for the
buck, but that is just my opinion. They offer more markers and more
opportunities for further testing and have great customer service.
Ancestry's DNA operation is definitely subpar in my opinion although their
cheap "33" marker test will undoubtedly bring in some testees who have been
hesitant up till now.
From: M Robards
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:51 PM
Subject: [DNA] OT Possibly, comparing companies
I think this is OT, so please, if it is, reply off list. I want some
opinions regarding ordering from one testing company (Company B), to
compare against someone who has already tested at another (Company A).
Different number of markers (less for the new testers if they go with
Company B), and a big difference in price between the two companies
(Company A costs more per marker than Company B). I can see a big
disadvantage for the new testers if they end up not matching the
original subject who has already tested. If they are interested
enough to continue to look for matches, it seems to me they would have
wanted to start with Company A, since there are many more available
markers to order.
Additional fact, the original tester is R1a. Would 33 markers be
enough to compare against 37 or even 67 to determine a 'match', if all
participants end up being R1a :) So much for 'A' and 'B'. OK, so to
me, if they end up also being R1a, it's OK. But if they don't, say if
they turn out to be R1b of some sort, the new testers would have a
disadvantage. Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill at these
prices we're seeing?
If this is OT, please reply to me off list.
|Re: [DNA] OT Possibly, comparing companies by "Michael L. Hébert" <>|