I fully agree with Ralph's comments on the advantages of FTDNA vs. Ancestry. There are many additional benefits at FTDNA which Ralph hasn't covered. First and foremost is the ability to upgrade and order additional markers. Currently a 67-marker test is available which is essential for deciding whether or not a match with another surname is meaningful. Some time next year additional markers will be available bringing the total up to over 100 markers. The reporting of micro alleles (eg, 13.3, 14.2) will also further help to refine matches. Micro-alleles will be introduced when the FTDNA database is upgraded in line with the NIST guidelines next spring. I don't believe Ancestry even report micro-alleles. Ancestry do not provide any facility for SNP testing. Their haplogroups are therefore predicted and not confirmed, and there have been numerous examples of people who have subsequently re-tested at FTDNA who have discovered that their haplogroup prediction is wrong. A similar problem applies with the Ancestry mtDNA tests as they again don't do any SNP testing. FTDNA test selected coding region SNPs to confirm the haplogroup for all HVR1 and HVR2 tests as part of the price, and of course there is the option to upgrade to the full sequence test which is not available at Ancestry. For Y-DNA tests FTDNA will do a free haplogroup backbone test if they are unable to predict the haplogroup, and a number of my project members have benefited from this service. FTDNA participants can also benefit from ordering a deep clade test to refine their haplogroup assignment. My dad for instance is R1b1b2a1a4 according to FTDNA nomenclature. FTDNA testees can also benefit from joining the relevant haplogroup project or subclade project. While there are haplogroup projects at Ancestry they are effectively meaningless because of the lack of SNP testing. I have set up projects at Ancestry for my surnames largely as a diversionary measure in an attempt to encourage people to join my own projects rather than testing at Ancestry. My experience is that the project management tools provided by FTDNA are far superior to those provided by Ancestry, eg, the FTDNA TiP tool for comparing genetic distance, facility to send bulk e-mails to project members, a general fund facility to accept donations, etc. There are a few minor glitches with the new FTDNA system but it is a major upgrade and any problems are usually resolved reasonably promptly. The Ancestry database can be searched free of charge so long as you have an Ancestry account: http://dna.ancestry.com You can search the database by surname. The database is not designed for privacy as the testees' names are displayed unless they choose to remain anonymous. The testees' haplogroups and number of markers tested are shown along with the mtDNA haplogroup if available. If you add your own results to the Ancestry database you can search for matches, but the matching system is very primitive. Many Genographic Project customers have for example entered 12-marker results but there is no way to filter them out of your list of matches. The only information provided is the number of generations to the most recent common ancestor with no indication of the possible range. A 12-marker match is therefore shown as having an MRCA within 12 generations. I don't know if my dad's matches are representative but about 30% or 40% of his matches in the Ancestry database have not even tested at Ancestry, and nearly all appear to be FTDNA/Genographic customers. The Ancestry groups are set to be private by default. I've made my Ancestry groups public but for some reason few people seem to choose this option. Unless I am mistaken, there is no way to display your results on your group pages, so there is no way for people to see the DNA results for any Ancestry group unless they actually join the project. Even then the only way to see the results is to negotiate the cumbersome DNA console. The compare DNA page takes ages to load but it does allow you to put people into subgroups. Everyone is listed by their full name, and there is none of the flexibility we have within the FTDNA system to enter the name of the MRCA instead or to choose whether or not to have the DNA results on public display. Also, anyone can join an Ancestry DNA group, even if they haven't taken a DNA test, so the headline numbers for their projects are very misleading. Debbie Kennett http://www.familytreedna.com/public/CruwysDNA http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Devon

Debbie, Ralph, AND Charles, I appreciate all the info on the comparison. Of course the killer is the advantage 67 markers has over "46" markers. My own line would be hard to distinguish from WAMH at ancestry.com. (I'm not sure the provider comparison at the ISOGG wiki presents a dismal enough picture of Ancestry.com's service for newcomers who may not know any better.) One point that is not common knowledge: For access to the Ancestry.com database, a free Ancestry.com "Registered Guest" account suffices. Paid or subscription accounts, at either Ancestry.com or myfamily.com, are NOT required. So FTDNA customers, as has been pointed out, may benefit by searching for matches at ancestry.com -but THIS MAY BE DONE FOR FREE. In fact I have set up a group there, with having only the "Registered Guest" status. I have had a "Registered Guest" account for years, so I know it can be done, but when I wanted to describe how to obtain one, I could not find ANY mention of it at Ancestry.com, even by doing a google site search for the term. I also had a hard time (but not nearly so hard) finding the link to manually enter a DNA haplotype into their database. I've edited the article Debbie mentioned, http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Ancestry.com_DNA , so the links are shown explicitly there. Richard Thrift ---- Debbie Kennett <debbiekennett@aol.com> wrote: I fully agree with Ralph's comments on the advantages of FTDNA vs. Ancestry. There are many additional benefits at FTDNA which Ralph hasn't covered. First and foremost is the ability to upgrade and order additional markers. Currently a 67-marker test is available which is essential for deciding whether or not a match with another surname is meaningful. Some time next year additional markers will be available bringing the total up to over 100 markers. The reporting of micro alleles (eg, 13.3, 14.2) will also further help to refine matches. Micro-alleles will be introduced when the FTDNA database is upgraded in line with the NIST guidelines next spring. I don't believe Ancestry even report micro-alleles....