Gedmatch, a free service that accepts donations (and I highly encourage everyone who uses it to donate) allows users of all three companies to compare their DNA results. Why is this valuable? Because the ability to triangulate and identify matches is absolutely a benefit to anyone who is utilizing DNA to unlock the secrets to their mysteries in their genealogy.
So how large of a match can you find? Here are the top matches for my kit.
Details
|
Total
cM
|
largest
cM
|
Gen
|
|
Details
|
Total
cM
|
largest
cM
|
Match
Relationship
|
Family
Connection
|
3549
|
214.5
|
1
|
|
185.6
|
110.3
|
Mom
|
|
||
3552
|
209.3
|
1
|
|
194.6
|
119.4
|
Dad
|
|
||
1039.7
|
70.2
|
1.9
|
|
0
|
0
|
First cousin
|
Mom
|
||
214.1
|
77.6
|
3
|
|
0
|
0
|
Half first cousin 1R
|
Hager
|
||
233.5
|
45.6
|
3
|
|
83.7
|
37.8
|
1 cousin 2 R
|
Adams/Trahern
|
||
220.3
|
35.6
|
3
|
|
0
|
0
|
Double 3rd cousin
|
Barnes/Franklin
|
||
84.9
|
35
|
3.7
|
|
0
|
0
|
3rd cousin 1R
|
Barnes/Franklin
|
||
61
|
45.2
|
3.9
|
|
0
|
0
|
Half 1 cousin 2R
|
Pyburn/Hardy
|
||
64.8
|
36.9
|
3.9
|
|
0
|
0
|
3rd cousin 1R
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
63.2
|
24.3
|
3.9
|
|
0
|
0
|
2nd cousin 2R
|
Hardy/Nelson
|
||
52.9
|
35.9
|
4
|
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
|
||
59.9
|
26.3
|
4
|
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin 1R
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
59.9
|
26.3
|
4
|
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin 1R
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
57.6
|
18.3
|
4
|
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin 1R
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
47.5
|
28.3
|
4.1
|
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
|
||
49.1
|
27.5
|
4.1
|
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
|
||
46.8
|
24.6
|
4.1
|
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin 1R
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
47.1
|
24.3
|
4.1
|
|
13
|
7.6
|
4th cousin 1R
|
Brunson/Platt
|
Here is a look at my father's top matches.
Details
|
Total
cM
|
largest
cM
|
Gen
|
Details
|
Total
cM
|
largest
cM
|
Name
|
Family
|
3552
|
209.3
|
1
|
194.6
|
119.4
|
Daughter
|
|
||
370
|
36.3
|
2.6
|
0
|
0
|
Double 2nd cousin 1R
|
Barnes/Franklin
|
||
209.6
|
51.7
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
Half first cousin 1R
|
Pyburn/Hardy
|
||
143.5
|
34.7
|
3.3
|
0
|
0
|
3rd cousin
|
Barnes/Franklin
|
||
106.8
|
24
|
3.5
|
0
|
0
|
2nd cousin 1R
|
Hardy/Nelson
|
||
81.9
|
39
|
3.7
|
0
|
0
|
3rd cousin 1R
|
Beck
|
||
80.5
|
39
|
3.7
|
0
|
0
|
3rd cousin
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
76.1
|
25.8
|
3.8
|
0
|
0
|
Half 2nd cousin 1R
|
McCurdy
|
||
76.7
|
25.8
|
3.8
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
76.7
|
25.8
|
3.8
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
72.6
|
23.6
|
3.8
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
71.7
|
23.2
|
3.8
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin 1R
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
64.7
|
36.3
|
3.9
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin
|
Brunson/Platt
|
||
53
|
37.5
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin
|
Pyburn
|
||
52.8
|
35.3
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
|
||
56.6
|
28.8
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
3rd cousin
|
McCurdy
|
And here is a look at my mother's top matches.
Details
|
Total
cM
|
largest
cM
|
Gen
|
Details
|
Total
cM
|
largest
cM
|
Name
|
Family
|
3549
|
214.5
|
1
|
185.6
|
110.3
|
Daughter
|
|
||
1929.5
|
104.7
|
1.4
|
0
|
0
|
Nephew
|
|
||
580.4
|
106.1
|
2.3
|
87.6
|
76.3
|
1st cousin 1R
|
Adams/Trahern
|
||
590.6
|
74.1
|
2.3
|
0
|
0
|
Half 1st cousin
|
Hager
|
||
97.3
|
58.1
|
3.6
|
0
|
0
|
3rd cousin
|
Hager/Barnett
|
||
55.8
|
55.8
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
Wallen/Blevins
|
||
52.5
|
52.5
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
6th cousin
|
Wallen/Blevins*
|
||
50.7
|
38.4
|
4.1
|
0
|
0
|
6th cousin
|
Wallen/Blevins
|
||
42.9
|
42.9
|
4.2
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
Wallens/Blevins
|
||
42.9
|
42.9
|
4.2
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
Wallens/Blevins
|
||
42.5
|
42.5
|
4.2
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin
|
Rogers/Rodgers
|
||
42.3
|
42.3
|
4.2
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
|
||
41.3
|
41.3
|
4.2
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
|
||
43.2
|
37.2
|
4.2
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
|
||
43.1
|
24.6
|
4.2
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
|
||
38.6
|
38.6
|
4.3
|
0
|
0
|
Unidentified
|
|
||
37.5
|
37.5
|
4.3
|
0
|
0
|
4th cousin
|
Rogers/Shue?
|
*Mom has an unusual match on the 11th chromosome.
The segment, 74 cM long is matching over 20 descendants of Elisha Wallen and
Mary Blevins in addition to descendants of Doswell Rogers on over half of the
same segment. Those with the family but unidentified are among the matches also
matching this same segment. The length of the segment is too long to be noise
or a false positive.
As you can see, my parents have several larger matches. My cousin on the other hand doesn't.
Details
|
Total
cM
|
largest
cM
|
Gen
|
Details
|
Total
cM
|
largest
cM
|
Match
Relationship
|
Family
Connected
|
1929.5
|
104.7
|
1.4
|
0
|
0
|
Aunt
|
|
||
1039.7
|
70.2
|
1.9
|
0
|
0
|
1st cousin
|
|
||
415.4
|
101.6
|
2.6
|
0
|
0
|
1st cousin 1R
|
Adams/Trahern
|
||
230.3
|
56.2
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
Half 1st cousin 1R
|
Hager
|
||
35.5
|
35.5
|
4.3
|
0
|
0
|
3rd Cousin
|
La porte
|
||
38.9
|
13.5
|
4.3
|
0
|
0
|
3rd cousin 1R
|
Hager/Barnett
|
||
33.8
|
33.8
|
4.4
|
0
|
0
|
3rd Cousin
|
La Porte
|
If the tools are so great, why don't more people use them, or to put it plainer, why don't we get more communication from those that do? A large portion of the people I contact on Ancestry for my tests there, either don't know about gedmatch or tested mostly for the purpose of identifying their genetic composition. On 23andme, well, most of those folks seem to have done it for the health reports. And on Family tree dna, well to be honest, I get no more responses from there than I do from Ancestry or 23andme. Probably 25 percent of the people I contact respond. On gedmatch, because they have had to take the time to put the data on there, I get responses from well over 50 percent, not quite a hundred percent, but much closer than on the other three companies.
For those of us who are actively trying to triangulate matches, it is so frustrating that someone matches and doesn't even respond. It's their right, but that doesn't mean I can't get frustrated if they don't answer. That's why I love Gedmatch, and why I highly encourage everyone to use it if they want to be able to get the most out of their autosomal DNA results.
Using Genome mate pro (free, and easy for me, but several have trouble figuring it out), I have been able to identify parts of the DNA for all my kits in the last 20 months, here is a visual representation of my success for both my parents.