DNA Land

by the New York Genome Center and Columbia University
Compares your DNA with reference data from different populations, converts your genome into a more complete sequence, and connects you with relatives.

Free • Online • Utility
Overall43.17 out of 53.17 out of 53.17 out of 53.17 out of 53.17 out of 5 3.17
201813 out of 53 out of 53 out of 53 out of 53 out of 5 3.00
20170    No Ratings
Earlier33.3 out of 53.3 out of 53.3 out of 53.3 out of 53.3 out of 5 3.30

Add Your Review of DNA Land

Your name:         Your rating:   worst 1 2 3 4 5 best

    If your review includes a website address, it will not appear until it is checked to ensure it is not spam.

Biggest Pro:  

Biggest Con:  

If you see this field, leave it blank:

4 Reviews of DNA Land     RSS 2.0 RSS                   Add Your Review

DNA Land Review by A van Helsdingen,  Jan 18, 2018

3 out of 53 out of 53 out of 53 out of 53 out of 5

Their ethnicity estimate is not good for me. I am of British and Northern European descent, and both are lumped into a single “Northern European” category. It gives me some Southern and Eastern European that is probably in error. So for me personally it is useless. It also hasn’t been updated for at least a year, which is a very long time in genetic genealogy. But looking at their regions I can see that for Asians in particular their ethnicity estimates could be quite useful.
I have zero matches. I can only infer that their thresholds are quite high and/or their algorithims are very conservative. At FTDNA and MyHeritage I match approximately 0.1% of the database. They have 78,000, so I should have around 70-80 matches. However I’ve seen from others that they have a proper chromsome browser and give an adequate amount of information.
Their health traits information is interesting and generally accurate. Their use of genetic data to tackle diseases such as breast cancer is laudable.

After a promising start in 2016 they seem to have stopped improving the services. The number of people in the database, 78,000 is extremely low. I would suggest that they revamp and revitalize their website and offerings, and they could then be a major player in the genetic genealogy market.

Biggest Pro: The health and traits information
Biggest Con: Needs a total revitalization, which I’m not sure is forthcoming

DNA Land Review by Jason,  Dec 29, 2016

4 out of 54 out of 54 out of 54 out of 54 out of 5

I am satisfied with my results, as they broke it down pretty well. However, it would help if they gave definitions of the regions they found my DNA, and general facts that support how they came to the results. It’s a little difficult for me to do research based on what DNA Land gave me. Maybe it would also be nice if they gave a list of ethnic groups that are common to such regions. For example, which ethnic groups live in the Lower Niger Valley? The trait predictor was pretty neat, though; it was accurate enough.

Biggest Pro: Organized, fairly detailed and thorough
Biggest Con: Needs definitions of regions and a list of possible ethnic groups

DNA Land Review by G Hunt,  Nov 23, 2016

2 out of 52 out of 52 out of 52 out of 52 out of 5

Waste of time as predictions for eye color and height significantly wrong as it strongly predicted brown eye color when I have bright blue eye color and it predicted my height several inches taller.. Gedmatch by comparison correctly shows my blue eye color.

Ethnicity wrong as it showed no Sicilian or Southern Italian when I have two grandparents from Southern tip of Italy near Sicily and have verified all Italian ancestors have lived there going back hundred of years.

Only good part was correct percentage of Northern European ancestry including Great Britain and Scotland unlike FTDNA that gave me zero English or Scottish or Irish ancestry when I have significant amount

Biggest Con: Predicted entirely wrong eye color and ancestry results not correct

DNA Land Review by scott,  Jul 22, 2016

4 out of 54 out of 54 out of 54 out of 54 out of 5

did the ancestry and said I was 97% European 3 western Asian/ my DNA. land was way diff I got 89% west Eurasian with 46south central European 28% north east European 18 north Slavic 9.4 Finnish . 8.6 Mediterranean island ,Dravidian 3.8 /Africa 8.1 Mende /Akan east Africa 3.1 south east Asia 1.1 and ?1.1 . and north west European 3.2 I can see African ancestry being from Louisiana but 5.1 seem high and facts its higher than my north west European and were did east African come from ancestry showed no African and the Dravidian as well as south east Asian .this seems way off/ not saying I don’t have any African I probably do since I’m from the south but seems high and the Dravidian and south east Asian puzzules me

Biggest Pro: not sure
Biggest Con: not sure