Question of the Week: Do you recommend Ancestry or MyHeritage?

Question

Many people who are new to genealogy choose to subscribe to an all-around tree-building and research service. The most popular are Ancestry and MyHeritage. FindMyPast is also popular in the UK.

Would you recommend this? Are there pros and cons?

Please help new genealogists by offering your advice below. You could also answer on Facebook. Thank you!

Answer 1

I used to use Ancestry, but I found so many errors that I gave up with it.

It may be different in other countries, like all of these sites, Wikitree included, they are all American focussed as if the rest of the world does not exist.

Now I just use UK official records, hence I do struggle when it comes to family moving away from England.

As for my Heritage I have seen some of the errors put up by members of my own family,

Comments

I am so glad you mentioned this. I waver with my comments on certain sites like FamilySearch because I find a larger dichotomy at times on that site in particular (of course for this question- it isn't a full service site to qualify but this needs to be said of all sites). For FS they have some of the best Archives and wonderful persons who provide them and allow people outside of their faith and membership to have access to nearly all of the records so I never want to say their name negatively but it's definitely the largest number of self-centered, egocentric members who constantly leave locations as "Rowan co...N.C. ." (verbatim paste) where as it is meant to be Rowan County, North Carolina, United States- but if they dont leave a source or somment OR they are one of the lovely persons who write "my gedcom vs familysearch" or "Gedcom blah blah". I don't want to offend others but I feel it's rude to the Church members, providing the access, rude to any member who works on profiles and rude to persons not in the states. I will often provide a sentence explaining why i changed it including tthe fact that not everyone on the international site doesn't live in the states, let alone speak English, so we need to be thorough for everyone to have something close to universal. With the "Gedcom" answer I like to finish their fragments with a full sentence like "...is not a valid source but more like a genealogy diary specific to the person mentioning it. There may or may not be primary sources and it could be fictional " and so on...Sorry I couldn't think to make this shorter but I'm American and love my country but I love and respect most others as well and can't stand intentional elitism. If it's a genuine, issue of uneducation (I think common sense) I will apologize but still further explain these are little things helping to contribute to the larger sentiments and generalizations about our population. I digress. Cheers! - Becky Elizabeth

---

This answer nailed it.

Ancestry trees are riddled with sloppy errors, so I only use them for a starter, then check everything on the other sites.

MyHeritage is frustrating.  It asks you for a location, then ignores it when giving results.  It is good for UK Census records, but the transcriptions strip out lots of info available from the original document, which you have to transcribe yourself.

---

This video (by seasoned pros) The Problem is not FamilySearch covers many aspects, and applies to all platforms. I have had great exchanges with FS contributors over the years. It helps if you become efficient with merging duplicates (when you are certain of the match). Also use the "Following" function for critical profiles.

I am now using Pro Tools on Ancestry and it is awesome for cleanup of your own trees; but more importantly for collaborating with a few others (using shared trees) in comparing DNA matches for Name Studies. I believe MyHeritage has comparable features but I don't have time to use both effectively, so I limit the cost factors.

I typically toggle between Ancestry and Family Search profiles to add sources and resolve all issues that I can find, then work on my matching WikiTree profiles. 

---

I agree 1000%, Every one of my lines at Ancestry have errors on stuff before 1850.

---

One of the practices I dislike about FS is how they list living persons as dead—I’m guessing this is so the names can be shown rather than private.  I’m “dead”, my sister, brother, aunt and many more living relatives are “dead”.  I’ve sent notes.  No change.  So I assume it’s intentional.  Makes me skeptical of other info I learn.  But with all of the sites, i look for clues and then work to see if they are accurate.  At least it’s a start.

---

Ancestry does have other countries available. Germany for instance. You can also use their international plan which includes sources outside the US. Most of my family history is outside the US after a couple generations. I found lots of British, Scottish, Irish, French and Germany sources very well on Ancestry.

---

Regarding living people:

If you find any name entry that you know to be of a living person, you have the right and responsibility to change the status to "living". You will get a warning message that only you will then be able to change the status back to "deceased". If the original poster elects to repeat the action by adding a new entry, you can then report that as flagrant abuse. You can do that by entering "report abuse" in the help box and following the instructions.

---

Thanks.  I’ll try that out. Appreciate it.

---

IF you have the time to do as Jim suggested, PLEASE make the changes and if for some reason you don't have the time or would rather not deal with it feel free to contact me here or there etc and I am happy to help as this is something I also battle but for slightly different reasons (I'll explain) but I can simply use whatever parameters set and the data you want changed and with you and your family member's permissions respectfully, not a necessary thing on site as I wouldn't need to access either your or anyone else's accounts. I find often users connecting any "hint" to a profile that may involve the creation of a parent or child  (anyone really) on the same document who isn't currently connected to the family unit. Many times they will mark someone over the age of "x" years as Deceased without any proof and often without being related to the family. I find this horribly offensive and also it can be traumatic, albeit rare, but I think of my time as a paramedic and there is a reason we don't get off work and discuss the names of persons' injured or deceased- the family might not know and finding out through a third party discussion is horrible! Of course that is more serious and much more likely than a website but it is still possible with disconnected family's or estranged members. I couldn't count off hand how many times I've emailed to have the profile opened up to living. Yes, it limits hints or suggestions and may cause some pauses in that part of your tree. However, if you have living relatives with whom you don't speak nor feel comfortable speaking to their closer relatives about them, then it really shouldn't be an emergency getting them in your current chart / tree. Apologies for the length again but brevity after these long shifts is difficult for me.

Cheers! Becky Simmons

P. S. - my offer to help was seriously written for you or anyone reading who either doesn't have the time nor the patience to deal with certain things ;) I am a busy person but tend to have insomnia often and during thsse hours I can best get the necessary emails and changes in while many others aren't on these sites here.

---

(I'll post this separately on G2G for general benefit)

It is not always easy to quickly find information in Family Search. Correcting the status of a Living person who has been marked as Deceased is quite easy when you know where to look:

As a rule, in Family Search, you should not attach sources to any person listed in a given record who was born less than 110 years ago unless you are certain that person has died. You should attach a supporting record and/or a sufficient note.

If you find the name of someone you KNOW to be living, you can take the following steps:

The polite response would be to send a message to the contributor who entered the “Deceased’ status to let them know that the person is Living and that you are changing the status. If you don’t notify them, they may be inclined to repeat the entry if they ‘think’ the person is likely deceased.

On the person’s profile page, in “Details” view > “Vitals” > “Death”, click on the pencil icon to open “Edit Death”. Click on the button for “Living”.

Once you change the status to living, then only you will be able to view and change any details for that person.

Here is a direct link to the Family Search help page for the full discussion:  Living and Confidential People in Family Tree- Family Search

---

I use Ancestry for records - the family trees tend to be unreliable. (Even official records aren't 100% reliable, but they're not "said to be" stuff. Usually.)

Answer 2

I don't see why I should recommend any of them, as they both basically take money from you for doing work for them, and then sell your work to others for profit.

I get all the sources I need for free from the Norwegian site Digitalarkivet, which is run by the National Archives of Norway. They found out that they saved a lot of money on administration by putting the archivals on the Web.

Comments

I started seeing personal photos of relatives all over the sites as well and spilling on FindaGrave, FS even a couple on WikiTree which surprised me because they don't give sources- and my caption on the early add-ons to Ancestry for a few have specific notes saying "Please do not reproduce per a family request... but if you contact me, things may have changed and we can collaborate and I'll change the notes..." or something similar. I've never been contacted. This year I found three attached to people that aren't even my actual relatives. Ancestry clearly states in their basic rules "anything posted is to be assumed under copyright law and not to be reproduced without permission from members etc..." then they give some possible actions for recourse if desired. I emailed a couple of the incorrectly tagged sites but that's it...still...back then I had paid memberships and feel exploited bc now they've even taken away the ability to see more than 3 potential relatives in your tree if not paying- despite the email I received about the thousands of contributions made during the years I haven't been a paid member. Lame.

Answer 3

I use myheritage.de and ancestry.de, both in the German version and both with a free membership.

For me both aren't my home platform. I use them beside.

So I cannot speak about functions behind the paywall and  not much about the quality of matches.

For me the handling on both platforms is very similar. And I don't like the profile pages very much. Many functions are a bit hidden. Before the last big design change at MyHeritage, maybe one and a half year ago, the look of MyHeritage was much better to me and better structured. You had had more possibilities with free maches.

Now to me the profile pages on Ancestry look better, and the tree of MyHeritage looks better.

But the biggest problem to me is on Ancestry, that I can only enter concrete dates. It is not possible to enter before dates or after dates or date ranges. Some say, you can type what you want and ignore the warning. But if Ancestry cannot interpret the date correctly, it has problems with matching.

Comments

On Ancestry, they have ways to enter dates that are not solidified.

Abt. 1678 (for about)
Bef. 1678 (for before)
Aft. 1678 (for after)

They don't have a "between" so it is best to use Before or After and then make notes in the Birth and Death facts.

---

I tried it several time without success with a before-day-date and an after day-date.

After your comment I tried "Bef. 1913" without success and experimented again a bit: As I'm on the German platform I have to type "vor 1 Feb 1913"

It would be so simple, if Ancestry would give a link with some examples, maybe with a little (?). I didn't get it with experimenting and googling …

Thanks Shonda for the poke. 

So in the German version: "vor D MMM JJJJ", "etwa D MMM JJJJ", "nach D MMM JJJJ"

---

Glad to know it worked using German. It would be helpful if Ancestry would explain some things better for sure.

Answer 4

I started out with joining Ancestry about 10 years ago. I later joined My Heritage. I still pay into Ancestry, which I consider rather expensive, and I spend very little time there. Yes, there are several mistakes, and my 2nd great grandmother remains completely wrong in several trees on Ancestry.

When I found WikiTree, my first thought was: I can correct the errors in my McCleery family. My grandmother had saved her grandparents newspaper obituaries, so I knew my grandmother had her family correct.

WikiTree, being free, has allowed me to help others that didn’t belong to Ancestry or My Heritage, examples: four ladies to join DAR, my granddaughters work on college papers, a private detective work on a old case, find a second cousin that had no idea about her father’s family, and develop friendships that are extremely meaningful. None of these things happened through Ancestry or My Heritage.

Answer 5

Both have features that I prefer over the other but if I only had one it was be Ancestry. I am hesitant to say this because they are more expensive. I originally only signed up for the US plan but a lot of my ancestors are Canadian so had to upgrade plans. I find it easier to move data to wikitree using the wikitree browser extension from Ancestry. There are a lot of errors on all sites so it is challenging to correct it. My objective is to gather data from multiple sites and end up with a more complete picture and of course be more accurate.

Answer 6

When I started doing genealogy, I kept my tree on my own computer, usng the Legacy program, recommended by a second cousin.  She also let me use her login to Ancestry.  But I, and all my ancestors, are British, so I found Find My Past much better as a source for British records. I never created trees on either of those sites.

Then I found my great grandfather ( Pilcher-98 ) on Wikitree, explored it a bit, joined, added my great grandfater (Sept 2012), and eventually transferred all my personal tree to Wikitree.

Find My Past is great for British records, but not as good for US, Canadian,  Australian and New Zealand, and no good at all for South Africa (where some of my relatives migrated).  I know Ancestry is better for US sources, and I have sometimes found things on My Heritage that I couldn't find on FInd My Past.  But Find My Past is the only one I pay for.

Answer 7

I use Ancestry for the links to other records NOT to use family trees as a source!

I do use the Ancestry trees to get hints and hopefully links to correct sources. I think family records/guesses have useful information (middle names, death places) that I consider hints and use to help search for sources.

Frequently when I see blatant errors on Ancestry trees (child near the age of parent, crazy death dates) I message the profile manager and link sources.  One manager has responded and made a change!

Gave up MyHeritage years ago, too much guess info!

Comments

Exactly!

---

Agree!

Answer 8

I actually recommend both. Ancestry for the largest DNA database and MyHeritage for playing the long game for when and if you get European DNA matches. It worked in my case mostly because I have recent immigrant ancestors. It may not work for everyone but at least you can download your DNA off of Ancestry and upload it to Myheritage. The tools are now similar too so you can still use both to solve puzzles.

Answer 9

The advice I would give is to choose based on what you really need/want a paid-for service to do. I am primarily interested in sources and records research. I use Ancestry, FamilySearch and the NARA Catalog for record-hunting, supplemented with historical and scholarly resources as needed.

For awhile I had paid subscriptions to both Ancestry and My Heritage, and also tried Geni. In the end I chose a full Ancestry subscription as my only paid service, based on their large catalog of source records. I also upgraded to a paid Newspapers Plus subscription because I make extensive use of clippings and obituaries. I don't subscribe to bells and whistles like Ancestry's "pro tools" because I use desktop software (Family Tree Maker) for tree-building and pruning, as well as reporting and charting.

I haven't gone down the DNA rabbit hole yet, so have no basis for comparison in that regard.

Answer 10

I use Findmypast and Ancestry, both have record sets that the other doesn't. The transcriptions on both are fairly apalling, but the search is easier on FMP. One point where FMP wins, is that you can search a date range for all children with the same father and mother, and the address search as well, which is useful for census records where the name has been mistranscribed.

Answer 11

I use Ancestry in conjunction with FamilySearch.  Both have similar sources, but at times one has either a viewable copy or a more legible copy of the source.  I attach the FamilySearch source to the profile on WikiTree because it is free.  I use the Ancestry one when FamilySearch does not have it or I'll add it as a See Also with the FamilySearch one if Ancestry has a viewable copy or more information.

I use MyHeritage only for DNA and checking matches.  I have my DNA on Ancestry, also. (like many people).

Answer 12

Ancestry would be my choice even though it is pricey

Comments

Same. I have been with Ancestry for many years.

Answer 13

For tree building, I think both are a colossal convoluted mess and totally worthless with much more incorrect information than correct.  WikiTree, with the one tree concept and a slew of friendly, helpful members who are dedicated to accuracy, is the ultimate place for tree building.

For research, I think of Ancestry as probably the best collection of sources around, but they are oh-so-expensive.

Answer 14

If I were a professional genealogist, I would subscribe to all the sites. My wife wanted a subscription to Ancestry, after I was already on WikiTree for 2 years. She didn't trust WikiTree. After 1 month she was done with Ancestry and apologized to me for wasting the money!  

On the other hand: I went to the Iowa Historical Society to talk to the project manager of the Iowa Underground Railroad, Freedom Trail Project. My 2nd great grandfather was unknown to them, and I submitted proof he was a station master on the UGRR just east of Des Moines and exactly where he lived. We talked about genealogy sites and he claimed Ancestry was very beneficial to his research! But he was NOT paying for it out of his pocket!

So, all of this tells me it is what the end user needs to accomplish!  Do they just want to find their family roots?  Then WikiTree is the best.  Do they need to approach genealogy from a professional perspective? Then they would really need a subscription to all the sites. There just may be that one piece of information that the others do not have.

I'm not sure if Ancestry or My Heritage advertise on WikiTree, currently or have in the past.  I have tried to be truthful in my assessments and my keep personal opinions out of of the discussion!

Answer 15

I have not personally used My Heritage, I have been given access to My Heritage by other family members for their trees, but not for several years.

I wasn't impressed by what I saw on My Heritage at that time.

I have used Ancestry since 2011.

The record collections are significant. And if used properly can be used to create a well sourced and accurate tree.

Though many records have been mis-transcribed, and or mis-indexed. Perhaps because they seem to use FS transcriptions.

Trees on Ancestry can be very good, that depends on the person creating the trees. The vast majority of trees on Ancestry are junk, copied from other trees and unsourced.

I use FMP regularly as their UK records and the search process is much better, and much of the time the records are better transcribed and indexed. All my family history is in England. I am the immigrant ancestor in Canada.

The Canadian census records on FMP are much easier to find than the same records on Ancestry.

I don't have a tree on FMP, well a few shrubs, but chose not to recreate the same trees there, the process is far more complicated than on Ancestry.

Whichever of these sites are used, attention to detail is a necessity.

Answer 16

Personally I prefer My Heritage because its DNA testing and records databases are far more global than Ancestry.

I am not knocking Ancestry but its DNA testing and records are pretty much confined to the USA and territories.

For those of use who are not American, I much prefer My Heritage. Yes it is costly, but when I have money, it is well worth it.

The 2nd major reason is because I can have a free account on My heritage for which I can still see DNA matches and family trees, and I cannot do that on Ancestry. Certainly not for free.

I have been on My Heritage since I did my DNA test in 2018.

Answer 17

I use ancestry, but only for the records.  Like many other posters, family trees by other Ancestry users are incorrect, likely by accepting every 'hint' record as true, even when it doesn't make any sense (children born before parents).  As for myself, I only use records where I can verify the info by reading it and not a fact that AI spits out without an associated record.  I believe Ancestry is stronger with US records, but I've found enough Canadian, UK and German records to build my tree confidently back five to six generations.  (reading old German script is another adventure on it's own but doable if you spend enough time at it)

Answer 18

I confidently rely on Ancestry, my trusted tool for uncovering my roots for over 20 years.

Answer 19

On Ancestry, My heritage and find my past, subscribed only to ancestry.

But also from a UK point of view defo need to shout out free bmd and free reg as well as the GRO.

All useful for different reasons, sources can vary by site. The chromosome browser and DNA tools useful on my heritage combined with DNA painter, which I couldn't do on ancestry.

Ancestry size of DNA database is just hands down best, this is from someone based in UK. Their thrulines algorithm is so much better than my heritage.

Think I dislike most about ancestry are the replicated errors in the user trees. So easy to have huge numbers of incorrect trees with people just trying things out.

So Wikitree as a tree is just so much better! The funny thing is that I only really got a subscription after I got in to Wikitree!

Find my past good for specific counties and the newspapers.

Comments

Yes, I love free BMD and free reg.  West Somerset transcripts another great site. I have my tree on Legacy where I can write unsourced gossip without offending anybody. I did my DNA on Ancestry  and had few hits from a couple of cousins and always replied to people but found alot of people don't reply if contacted. I always double check any info where possible and use Ancestry as a guide as well as family search. I find some of the trees on FS also dubious and Ancestry on one tree has me born before my father. Wiki is the friendliest and most helpful. I might consider a short Ancestry subscription just to check the 1921 census.

Mt husband does all his research from the free Netherlands government site.

Answer 20

I have used Ancestry, FindMyPast and MyHeritage. I no longer subscribe to MyHeritage.

They all have their pros and cons and I have not used all the features of all of them.

Most of my research is in England but I do work in US, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand also.

I use Ancestry to build my trees. I was using it to do this before I joined WikiTree and I still find it faster to build trees in Ancestry as I do research and then transfer them to WikiTree (using the Sourcer extension).

FindMyPast has some record sets in England that Ancestry does not (Devon parish records for example). It also has the 1921 census (which Ancestry did not but have just added). I also find it easier to search with as Gill said.

When I cite records on WikiTree I prefer citing Ancestry rather than FMP (if no record/image available on a free site) because of the sharing link feature which lets non-subscribers see images.

MyHeritage has some advantages for DNA in that it gives the chromosome data that is needed for DNA Painter. But if you mostly use DNA for finding cousins then Ancestry is better because of the larger user base.

Comments

''FindMyPast has some record sets in England that Ancestry does not (Devon parish records for example). ''

This is important. Have a look at the collection of  records on each site. Have they records from your focus of interest?  Check to see if they are indexes or images. If the record is poorly indexed/ transcribed you can't tell without the image. If  you have original record scans  you don't have to rely another's transcript. You can search and read them in the old fashioned way, page by page  ( practice  improves transcription skills!). I won't use the English census index on Family Search. It's free but it's only an index/partial transcript.

 For me Ancestry is the most useful of the paid sites because they have more extensive  records from the areas I focus upon(nowadays,  I'm more into local history than personal genealogy but it's also good for my own Ancestry and for much but not all of  my husband's ). I also subscribe to The British Newspaper archives. Recently, I  had institutional access through the Open University Library to Find my Past .This opened up a host of Home Office criminal  records together with parish records from other localities. I do miss having access.  I'm debating whether to subscribe and drop the Newspaper Archives subscription as FMP includes access (but poorer search engine) It's either that or do yet another OU degree!

I did a trial with My Heritage  many years ago. I wasn't impressed. My home software (Family Historian) can link to it but I've turn it off. Far too many false suggestions. ( TBH, probably the same as Ancestry trees but I mostly ignore those)