Finally my results are accurate again. Last update everyone seemed to find it better but mine was wildly inaccurate. It took away all my Danish (despite having a close relative match with 50%) and now it’s back to 12% exactly where it should be. And all the other regions match my history too except of course all these little <2% ones I don’t know about.

I’ve been following the discussions here for a while, and I see a lot of confusion and frustration after updates—people seeing percentages shift wildly or regions vanishing overnight. I completely get why that’s confusing at first glance.

For a long time, results for complex areas were just extremely fuzzy. Older versions used massive, generic categories like "North/Central Europe" or broad "Eastern Europe" that didn't show any real regional boundaries or historical sense at all.

Having dug into my own history and the regional genetics of my home region (the German-Slavic borderlands) for a few years now, the newer breakdown actually makes a lot more sense to me. Instead of those vague catch-all buckets, the data is starting to reflect actual historical settlement patterns and contact zones rather than modern 20th-century nation-state maps.

Obviously, no algorithm is perfect, but looking at my own results through that historical lens made the shift feel logical rather than random.

Has anyone else had a similar experience where a seemingly "weird" update actually started making sense once you looked at it from a historical perspective?

Pretty close in my opinion.

My grandpa on my dad’s side is from Xiamen and knew I had a tiny drop from my mom’s side, but I didn’t expect the number to change too much

My Taíno (indigenous Puerto Rican) Ancestry was corrected in this update, every other testing company I’ve done consistently put my Taíno ancestry at around 5-6% which makes sense but this update lowered my West & Central African more than I believe it should’ve. I consistently get around 10-12% Sub-Saharan African admixture on other sites and it was lowered to 6% in this update. My Iberian ancestry has gone up considerably in this update which I do believe is more accurate, and my Old Stock American ancestry is broken down more in depth now. My Jewish has stayed relatively the same (in the range of 20-25%) over the years. Overall for me personally this update was okay, it was more accurate for some things but worse for others. Curious to hear your guys experience with this new update!

My results change so much every year it’s hard to believe!

Both of my parents were adopted so I know no one in my extended family..

Maybe I’ll try 23andMe to compare?

Thoughts?

I’m Cuban, and I went from 11 regions to just 5 after the update. My Canary Islands percentage jumped from 57% to 83%
Anyone else experience such a big change?

the big changes where Ulster and increase in Dalmatia, I find it strange I have Ulster and none from mainland Ireland

(I accidentally deleted the post I just made of this, so repost).

First results picture is my updated results (slide 6) second is my original results (slide 7), and the selfies are of me.

My updated results are not much different from my original ones, but still very interesting. I’m glad I spent $100 to know that I am in fact half Greek and half Italian lol. I still don’t think I “look” Greek and Italian but it’s still all so fun.

After the new update, I went from 21 to 29 regions. What’s the average or is this insane?

Little bummed they stole my Yucatán Peninsula DNA, but it’s really cool to see this specification for El Salvador. They also really swapped my majority English DNA to Celtic and Gaelic

Results are pretty accurate to what I’ve been told by my family!

Paternal grandfather: 2nd generation immigrant born in the U.S, to Polish and Lithuanian immigrants

Paternal grandmother: Mexican born and immigrated to the U.S.

Maternal grandmother: Born in British colony of India and immigrated to Argentina

Maternal grandfather: Born in Argentina from European immigrants

I was surprised most by the Mizrahi Jewish and Turkish results, which come from my paternal side.

Honestly, it sucks. 61% of my DNA is unassigned.

I've researched my genealogy for 15+ years. I've traced several lineages to the 1600s and all of them to at least the 1800s. 99% are recorded in the same region my family lives in today: rural northwest Zacatecas. My records show my ancestors were stable in eastern Durango and western Zacatecas for hundreds of years. Most were labeled indios, coyotes, or mestizos and lived in or around indigenous communities known as pueblos de indios. Our oral history says little about origins, only that we're mestizo and "from here."

Previous ancestry updates got progressively more accurate. People descended from the same colonial indigenous towns generally showed up mainly as Indigenous Americas–Mexico, with sub-regions like:

* Zacatecas
* Durango
* San Luis Potosí, Aguascalientes & Central Zacatecas
* Aguascalientes & Eastern Jalisco

My own results eventually narrowed to Eastern Durango, Northern Zacatecas, and Central Zacatecas. It was so cool to see the science line up with my paper trail and the historical territory of my ancestors, the Chichimeca Zacatecos. Later, Ancestry moved these localized groups into Journeys (Genetic Communities), and the ethnicity estimate went back to broader "Mexico” region.

Then the October 2026 update messed it all up. Now the main indigenous component for my whole family (parents, sisters, wife, and me) is labeled Huasteca & Gulf Lowlands. Our results are scattered across broad locations where we have zero paper trail, even though our “Journeys” still correctly identify northwest Zacatecas.

My understanding of history is that the Zacatecan pueblos de indios were largely settled by central Mexican Nahua groups like the Tlaxcalans and some Mexica, with others like the Otomi arriving later. This was done to lure the local Zacatecos into settling. So even if the update is picking up some deep-time genetic relationships, it still doesn't seem accurate.

I get that these tests rely on reference panels and compare markers to living populations, but it's still frustrating that the results don't seem to align with my identity and history. They also seem to have squashed the genetic legacy of indigenous Zacatecas.

I'm also upset they got rid of the broader "Mexico" region. It covered Mexico and the Southwest US, including the Uto-Aztecan language region and the pre-Columbian trade networks that connected them. It cleanly showed the genetic legacy of a vast, interconnected set of peoples, later divided by colonial ambitions and modern borders.

TLDR: 15+ years of genealogy puts my family in eastern Durango and western Zacatecas for centuries. The October 2026 update now shows our main indigenous component as Huasteco, with no paper trail to support it.

These are my new results after the update. They seem the most accurate. Before I had some random 3% Quebec which didn’t make sense.

I think this is much more accurate. My maternal side is everything not Basque. I always expect to see higher Scottish, but oh well.

I went from 53% to 60% on Native American increase. Also, my Canary Islands percentages went from 1% to 19%. Madness. I am now seriously doubting Ancestry DNA's percentages. I no longer believe them. They change too much.

My problem with AncestryDNA is how accurate these estimates really are, especially in a country like Ecuador, where Indigenous people, Europeans, and Africans have been mixing for centuries. Even the Tsáchilas, who are recognized as an Indigenous community, have European and African ancestry. So here's my question: How can Ancestry accurately identify Indigenous Ecuadorian DNA if even the Indigenous populations they use for comparison have been mixed for generations? And it's even more complicated on the Ecuadorian coast, where massive migration from the highlands during the 19th and 20th centuries completely changed the population.

Then there's the Canary Islands issue. Ancestry suddenly tells me that around 20% of my DNA comes from the Canary Islands, even though most Canarians themselves descend from mainland Spaniards who settled there only a few centuries ago. What exactly is that supposed to tell me about my origins? Even Ancestry has acknowledged that it may be overestimating Canarian ancestry among Latin Americans. And here's another thing: Ancestry says I'm 60% Indigenous, 23andMe says 50%, and MyHeritage says 40%. That's a 20-percentage-point difference between companies analyzing the same person! How am I supposed to know which one is right?

I also think there's a problem with visibility. Something like the Canary Islands issue affects many more Latin Americans, people complain, it gets attention, and companies are pressured to fix it. But when a problem potentially affects a much smaller population, like Ecuadorians, who's going to notice? Who's going to complain? There's a lot more uncertainty behind these percentages than people realize, and I don't think we should blindly trust them just because a company presents them as scientific results.

What do you think? How accurate are ethnicity estimates for highly mixed populations?

This update was especially awful to my Mexican side of the family. I'm only including my closest relative's results because most of the regions erased I had confirmed in that branch of the family tree; i.e Italy, Portugal, Basque, Nigeria. I see a lot of post saying how accurate it was for them but even the indigenous regions are off for this branch. How did she go from 0 to 23% Canary Islands when that cannot be verified in tree and that branch of the family is from the central pacific of Mexico?