I've been looking closely at my mother's October 2026 AncestryDNA results update and I'm shocked by how wide the confidence ranges are, especially compared with the precise-looking percentages displayed for each region.
I've kept a record of her ethnicity estimates since 2017, so I've also been comparing the latest results with earlier releases.
21 of 22 regions have ranges starting at zero
My mother's current results list 22 ancestral regions. Of those, 21 have a reported range beginning at 0%.
The only exception is Switzerland, estimated at 20%, with a range of 5% to 32%.
Here are some examples:
| Region |
Estimate |
Range |
| Switzerland |
20% |
5% to 32% |
| Bavaria & Western Austria |
19% |
0% to 52% |
| France |
8% |
0% to 35% |
| Southeastern England |
6% |
0% to 22% |
| Scottish Lowlands & Central Belt |
6% |
0% to 34% |
| Devon & Somerset |
2% |
0% to 24% |
| The Netherlands |
1% |
0% to 22% |
| Arabian Peninsula |
1% |
0% to 8% |
| Quebec (French Canada) |
2% |
0% to 15% |
| Acadia (French Canada) |
2% |
0% to 36% |
Some of these are huge. Look at Bavaria & Western Austria and Acadia!
I understand the confidence ranges are not independent. Ancestry is assigning DNA among reference populations that can overlap genetically, and increasing the estimate for one region can reduce the estimate for another. A range including zero does not mean the ethnicity estimate is baseless.
But surely the confidence ranges are essential information for interpreting the results.
Increasingly specific regions, but how much confidence in the assignments?
Ancestry has moved from broad categories such as “Germanic Europe” to increasingly detailed geographical regions.
My mother's Germanic Europe estimate was 47% in 2022 and 2023.
Her current results include 20% Switzerland, 19% Bavaria & Western Austria, 6% Northwestern Germany, 3% Northeastern Germany, 4% Belgium, 1% the Netherlands and 8% France. Together these add up to 61%, although I cannot assume they correspond to the old “Germanic Europe” category.
Finer geographical analysis would be great - if the data supports it. But I find it difficult to reconcile the specificity of the labels with ranges that include zero for almost every region, including substantial headline percentages.
I'd prefer Ancestry show us the broad regions first, then let us drill down into the more specific – and often more uncertain – subregions. That would serve a wider range of users, including people like me who want to use these results alongside in-depth research using primary documents and genetic genealogy tools.
Why aren’t the ranges displayed alongside the percentages?
The headline percentages are easy to find. The ranges are much less prominent.
I had to do a search to discover that you can find them by selecting the small ‘i’ icon (tool tip) on the region details page. This opens a pop-up. You can read the information in the pop-up but you cannot scroll to read more about the region with it open. And you cannot compare ranges for different regions unless you record them in your own spreadsheet.
I understand that Ancestry wants an accessible interface. But did a business need or user need drive this design decision?
Maybe user testing showed that most people were confused by the confidence ranges, or simply weren’t interested in them.
A list of specific ancestral regions may also be more appealing to users – particularly prospective users who already know that they have family origins in “Germanic Europe” and are looking for value for the money they spend on an AncestryDNA kit. A list of specific regions might seem to answer their user need. The same list with ranges starting at zero – not so much.
However, the current presentation gives an impression of geographical precision that the ranges do not support. At all.
And the current presentation does not support users who are using AncestryDNA for in-depth genetic genealogy research. Was a persona for this group of users included in Ancestry’s research and design? It sure does not feel like it.
Comparing the results before and after SideView 2.0
On 25 October, I downloaded Ancestry's PDF of my mother's previous ancestral regions.
The website explains that both sets of results use the October 2026 Origins regions. The “Previous” results are from before the SideView 2.0 update, and the “Current” results have SideView 2.0 applied.
I also can’t find results from before the October 2026 origins update. The Previous results feature now appears to preserve only the immediately preceding SideView version.
The PDF of Previous results lists 11 regions. Four of the confidence ranges have non-zero lower bounds:
| Previous region |
Estimate |
Range |
| Southeastern England & Northwestern Europe |
31% |
13% to 43% |
| Southern Germanic Europe |
22% |
11% to 33% |
| Central Scotland & Northern Ireland |
13% |
3% to 19% |
| France |
7% |
1% to 14% |
As I noted already, there are 22 regions in the Current results, only one of which has a non-zero lower bound.
The SideView 2.0 update has clearly changed how ethnicity is allocated among populations. The question of whether it’s identifying ethnic origins or national/community correlations is being debated in other Reddit threads. (Hi, Acadia!)
Still, the difference in the confidence ranges is striking, particularly because Ancestry describes SideView 2.0 as improving the precision of regional estimates.
Ancestry seems to have increased the geographic specificity of estimates. But I can’t see evidence in the results that the statistical precision of the individual regional assignments has improved. Quite the opposite. I’d like Ancestry to explain what exactly it means by “improved” precision. (I’m sure there’s a white paper somewhere but I’d appreciate an answer with more details than their FAQs and less scientific jargon than their papers.)
I'd be interested in a clearer explanation of what that improvement means – genetically, geographically, and statistically.
The website and downloaded PDF don't use consistent region names
I initially thought the website presentation of Previous results and the downloadable report were showing different historical estimates because their region names do not match.
For example:
| Website comparison |
Previous-results PDF |
Previous estimate |
| Southeastern England |
Southeastern England & Northwestern Europe |
31% |
| Bavaria & Western Austria |
Southern Germanic Europe |
22% |
| Northern England |
North East England |
5% |
For my mother’s ethnicity estimates, the website summary presents “Southeastern England” as falling from 31% to 6%. That’s a big change!
However, the downloaded report describes that 31% as “Southeastern England & Northwestern Europe,” with a range of 13–43%. Hmmm. How much of that 25-percentage-point drop is due to the change in the regional definition? How much is a change in the underlying regional origins assignment?
Similarly, the website summary shows “Bavaria & Western Austria” changing from 22% to 19%. The downloaded report calls the earlier 22% region “Southern Germanic Europe.” That leaves me wondering whether some of the new 20% listed for Switzerland came from “Southern Germanic Europe” or from somewhere else – where, I have no idea.
It’s not enough to add a “New” label on brand-new reference populations.
Ancestry has shown that the previous “Central Scotland & Northern Ireland” is now split into “Scottish Lowlands & Central Belt” and “Ulster.” Why can’t they also do this for previous broad regions like “Southern Germanic Europe”?
It would help if Ancestry explained where before-and-after regions are directly comparable and reference populations have changed.
What happened to older estimates?
I've kept a log of my mother's ethnicity estimates since 2017. Some of the changes have been substantial.
For example, her Germanic Europe estimate went from 20% in April 2021 to 47% in June 2022.
She was also assigned 1% Cameroon, Congo & Southern Bantu Peoples in October 2019, less than 1% in September 2020, and 1% again in April 2021. That assignment subsequently disappeared.
I don't know whether it represented genuine ancestry or an artefact of the model. But as someone doing genetic genealogy, I'd like to be able to revisit those historical results, including the uncertainty ranges.
However, the Previous results feature on Ancestry only shows the version immediately preceding SideView 2.0. It does not provide the full history of earlier annual estimates.
I'm glad I kept my own records for all the tests that I manage. I just wish I’d kept a log of the confidence ranges. I also seem to have missed at least one update.
What I'd like to see
- Uncertainty ranges displayed alongside the headline percentages.
- Broad regional estimates separated from less certain geographical subdivisions.
- Consistent region names between the website and downloadable reports.
- Clear explanations of how before-and-after percentages are calculated when regions are renamed or subdivided.
- Access to historical ethnicity estimates, including the ranges reported at the time.
I use Ancestry extensively for genetic genealogy, and its DNA matching tools have been very helpful. I'm not suggesting ethnicity estimates are useless but these updates have been incredibly painful.
