Looking at Record Hints between the Big Three Genealogy Family Tree Websites

 

FamilySearch.org, Ancestry.com, and MyHeritage.com all provide record hints. Over the past few years, these matching systems have increasingly incorporated artificial intelligence. I use all three websites daily for genealogical research, and I have definite opinions regarding the accuracy, availability, and overall usefulness of their hints. These observations are not based on a formal study; they reflect my personal experience and methodology.

Each of these massive websites hosts its own unique collections, and hint generation naturally depends on the records each platform holds. These collection differences are among the most influential factors when judging utility. Because I am familiar with all three, I rely on each for its specific strengths. This diversity makes direct, 1-to-1 comparisons tricky—each platform is uniquely valuable in its own right.

Both Ancestry and MyHeritage offer an abundance of immediately actionable record hints (Record Matches on MyHeritage). When working on either platform, one could spend nearly full-time simply evaluating and attaching quality matches. FamilySearch.org remains the outlier. When adding a new person to the FamilySearch Family Tree, you might receive a trickle of hints, but more often the system seems to wait for you to build out the profile before suggesting relevant records. Because of this lag, I typically do the heavy lifting on Ancestry or MyHeritage first. Once I transfer that verified data over to FamilySearch, hints finally begin to populate—though they often simply mirror the records I just added from the other sites.

Ancestry and MyHeritage deliver hints seamlessly. On Ancestry, AI increasingly surfaces potential tree extensions and leaf hints that are generally well-supported and helpful, though complex or conflicting lines can still trip them up. MyHeritage’s Record Matches have consistently been among the most dependable, often capable of driving an entire line's research on their own.

FamilySearch has placed its AI-assisted research tools front and center. However, these AI-generated hints and suggestions can be deceptively tricky, frequently leading researchers into messy genealogical quagmires. Unwary users risk accepting these suggestions without proper source verification, quickly injecting errors into a shared tree.

I encountered a clear example of this recently with a FamilySearch AI-assisted suggestion. The tool suggested a spouse for an individual in England whose existing profile showed siblings born across five widely scattered locations—a classic red flag that the family grouping was already suspect. Accepting the AI recommendation at face value would have compiled bad data on top of bad data.

AI can and does make mistakes. Evaluating historical context, geographic plausibility, and family structure should never be left entirely to an algorithm. Future iterations of these tools will undoubtedly improve, but for now, everyday researchers need to approach AI-generated suggestions with healthy skepticism and rigorous verification.

Can AI Fix the FamilySearch Family Tree -- Part Two Concerns and Challenges

 

The first big question is whether AI can actually improve the quality of the massive FamilySearch.org Family Tree, and whether it can consolidate and search the scattered record collections across the website. FamilySearch currently maintains eight distinct record collections that are either searched individually or, at best, appear together in only one or two combined queries.

Here are the eight primary search areas under the "Search" tab:

• Records -- The core portal for searching traditional indexed records, currently supplemented by computer-indexed records that are increasingly AI-assisted.

• Full Text -- An AI-powered search (currently in FamilySearch Labs) that indexes every word in processed documents and generates transcriptions alongside the digital images.

• Images -- A vast archive of browse-only digital images, largely unindexed and gathered by FamilySearch camera crews around the world.

• Genealogies -- A diverse aggregate of unrelated databases, lineage collections, oral genealogies, and contributed family trees.

• Catalog -- The comprehensive bibliographic guide to the Family History Library's collection, indexed using traditional library methods at the collection or roll level rather than the individual record level.

• Books -- A collection of digitized family histories, local histories, and periodicals that are searchable full-text, word-for-word.

• Cemeteries -- A dedicated database of burial grounds and individual headstones searchable via the Cemeteries interface.

• Newspapers -- A historical newspaper database indexed for full-text search, provided through a partnership with NewspaperArchive.com.

It is obvious that AI can perform remarkable feats—particularly in automated transcription, paleographic deciphering, translation, and surrogate search. A key question, however, is whether AI is reliable enough to replace FamilySearch's traditional catalog and query systems, tools built on decades of painstaking volunteer indexing.

Full-text search can surface ancestral records that never made it into traditional field-indexed collections. However, it currently covers only a small percentage of total holdings, and there is no simple way to track its overall impact across the other major collections. While icon badges in the Catalog indicate certain microfilms or DGS folders that have been processed by Full Text, the remaining collections offer few clear indicators of inclusion.

If FamilySearch eventually applies full-text AI search across the vast majority of its holdings, will traditional searches—such as the Historical Records Collection and the Catalog—become obsolete? Furthermore, could full-text retrieval be paired with specialized AI agents capable of actively evaluating and contextualizing search results against existing Family Tree profiles? Ultimately, will AI agents assist in researching all the records on the FamilySearch website?

The AI technology answer all three questions with a "yes" is available today. The biggest challenge is processing the billions of records on the FamilySearch website and then redesigning the website to take advantage of the complete Full-text search capabilities. 

The results would then be similar to what is currently done on the Ancestry.com and MyHeritage.com websites. For example, MyHeritage.com has for years provided highly accurate Record Matches that search virtually all the pertinent records on the website in 42 languages. Also, Ancestry.com has AI assisted searches that suggest the next individuals on many of the end of lines. 

I guess the last question is how fast can FamilySearch start implementing the programming to solve the questions?

Can AI fix the FamilySearch.org Family Tree?

 

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Salt Lake City and to attend a very limited conference with FamilySearch about the future of the FamilySearch Family Tree. This was at the junction of the failure of the new.FamilySearch.org Family Tree and the desire to replace it with something else. The results of the day-long meeting was that the FamilySearch Family Tree should be an extensive wiki. However, at that date, relatively far in the past, it was not possible to imagine the size and complexity of the current FamilySearch Family Tree.

The FamilySearch Family Tree has grown in its size to an immense repository for a vast amount of information about the family of families of people throughout the world. The original concepts of allowing unlimited individual changes and unlimited individual contributions has become its greatest obstacle for continued use. Slowly over the years since it was introduced, the FamilySearch Family Tree has been modified from its original completely open wiki structure to be more restricted. 

One of the initial problems with the creation of the Family Tree was the addition of seed data that was incomplete and in many cases entirely inaccurate. This data had been created by years of individual genealogists acting separately with various levels of competency. Initial basic challenges of the Family Tree included, a massive amount of duplication, a considerable amount of inaccuracy and a substantial amount of imaginary data.

Efforts at regularizing and correcting the data entered into the FamilySearch Family Tree includes the creation of user trees that are independent of the FamilySearch Family Tree and maintained by individuals or organizations. Although a very valuable step in providing a venue for additional information that is separate from the FamilySearch Family Tree, the addition of user trees is only a small bandage covering the issues of the main tree itself.

FamilySearch additionally, resisted the suggestions that the wiki family tree be moderated. The amount of effort and the number of people to actually moderate the FamilySearch Family Tree seemed overwhelming. However, today, there is the possibility of using AI agents and AI oversight of the FamilySearch Family Tree is certainly a way to overcome the current difficulties.

Major issues facing the FamilySearch.org Family Tree include a substantial amount of duplication, changes made to well-documented and accurate information that is already present in the family tree, the addition of unsubstantiated and unsourced information, much of which is entirely inaccurate, other minor issues with the consistency of the data. All these issues fall into categories of maintenance that could be supplied by AI agents.

There is a major concern on the part of FamilySearch that requiring more accuracy and eliminating duplicates will discourage people from using the Family Tree. This is particularly true for first-time users entering their own information from personal records or memory. AI agents could easily be developed to assist with this initial entry, ensuring contributions are supported by an identified source—even if that source is simply personal knowledge. Beyond those initial generations, however, there is little justification for allowing constant, unchecked changes to records that are already thoroughly documented and substantiated.

Substantial parts of the family tree where the data has been substantiated and where all the ordinance work has been done by those doing the work in the temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be partially read-only. The basic information available which is well substantiated should not be subject to change, although the addition of additional sources and memories should be possible. My constant example of this is the descendants of the Mayflower.

Information about the steps being taken by FamilySearch to begin this process of adding AI agents is not readily available to the public. But it would help those who are now abandoning the family tree for other venues due to the constant changes in their own genealogical data. It would also help if FamilySearch used some of the most talented genealogists to provide the structure for the AI agents. 

Presently, AI is changing dramatically, almost weekly. And it may be an obstacle to implementing any particular type of AI agency until the AI begins to settle down. However, it would also be a good idea to use AI programming that would be at least in part independent of the major AI websites and providers.

The original obstacle in creating a moderated wiki was the overwhelming need for people to monitor the quickly growing family tree. Today, we have the technology to add these monitors and improve the operation of the family tree so that it may become useful even to those who are now abandoning it.

Can you compare AI websites?

 

AI hasn't reached the level of variety presently available to someone trying to buy a car, but there are still some of the same factors involved in deciding which AI website to use. Each type of car available is scrupulously reviewed in online YouTube channel videos. Likewise, the different AI websites come under tremendously detailed examination. Like cars, sometimes the differences in AI websites turn out to be preferences. The usual car video compares two, three, four, or five different models of cars that are essentially the same. There are also major online reporting agencies, such as Consumer Reports, that rank vehicles on their own set of criteria. Likewise, AI websites are compared based on differences that are often totally unapparent to the general AI users. 

When I was very young, I lived in a very small town, and there was a major division between those in the town who drove Chevrolets and those who drove Fords. Members of each of the two groups were enthusiastically defensive of their choices and viewed the opposite car/truck owners as ill-informed and sometimes slightly un-American. Each year, of course, there was a scramble to compare the newest versions of the offerings from both car companies. 

We are in about the same condition today with the AI websites as happened during the past few weeks, new models or new versions of nearly all the websites have been introduced, and the online critics immediately begin the comparison. Unfortunately, the comparisons usually fall into the area of preferences rather than differences discernible by the ordinary user. For example, once again comparing the AI websites to vehicle purchases: the difference is that if you are a building contractor, you probably are more interested in a truck. If you are an individual whose use of the vehicle is limited, you probably drive a smaller, more economical vehicle. 

This is the case with AI users around me. Most of them are very happy using the free versions of any of the AI websites. These users don't need the enterprise versions of the AI websites any more than the average driver needs a  Ford F-450 Super Duty, Ram 3500 or a Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD, 

It is also apparent that, just as there is constant attention paid to the features of the new automobiles, the AI websites are continually compared by the new features that are implemented. Trying to keep up with AI is complicated by the fact that the features that are being reviewed are often so esoteric that only trained computer professionals can understand the nuances of the differences. 

What I think the individual AI user is really looking for is the AI equivalent of a Toyota Corolla.

If you are interested in exploring the differences between the various AI websites, the best way to do so is to begin asking your preferred website about how all the different offerings from Google Gemini to Claude are ranked under different criteria. By the way, the gas mileage or electrical mileage of the AI industry is measured in tokens. In one category, the websites with the highest number of usable tokens win the game. However, just like focusing on vehicle mileage ignores all of the other considerations involved in the purchase of a vehicle, focusing just on tokens produces the same results. The real difficulty is that the current state of the AI industry is that there is not a discernible difference in features that allows users to make educated choices. I find that most users make the choice of which AI website to use based mostly on recommendations from those that they view as more educated.

I spend a considerable amount of time comparing and contrasting various AI offerings and make my choice primarily on the breadth of utility, i.e., the features available. For some of the same reasons that I drive a Subaru, at this point, my ownership of TrailSeeker is based on economics and the fact that the car has high clearance and that I live in a town where there are terrible roads, steep hills, ice and snow, and other obstacles.

I suggest, just as I do with cars, that you do your homework, look at a lot of options, and make your choices based on what fits your needs the most.

Recently seen on Facebook: "I don't touch AI, and certainly don't want it anywhere near my genealogy !"

I am puzzled how this person was able to avoid using AI, unless they are conducting genealogical research completely on paper. If they have used any of the large family history platforms—from FamilySearch to Ancestry or MyHeritage—they have already been using AI. The record matching algorithms, automated indexing, and handwritten text recognition (HTR) behind these sites all rely on machine learning. In fact, anyone using Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge to search the web, compose emails with predictive text, or browse social media is regularly interacting with AI. There is simply no longer a practical way to participate online without it.

I maintain trees on FamilySearch, Ancestry, MyHeritage, and other platforms. AI is a remarkable research assistant if you understand how to harness it.

Even if we assume someone has somehow avoided direct contact with AI tools, their online "genealogy" is almost certainly built upon data, indexes, and digital collections surfaced by artificial intelligence. The massive shared trees online demonstrate just how intertwined modern research is with automated technology.

Years ago, I saw the exact same resistance from some of the attorneys in my law office. They were bound and determined to avoid computers. That seemed viable until they realized the rest of us were completing research in a fraction of the time using legal databases like Westlaw. Complete avoidance became impossible once the Arizona court system mandated electronic filing. Very shortly, even attorneys across the United States will find it impossible to practice law without utilizing some form of AI.

It will only be a matter of time before AI is entirely ubiquitous.

What is a Genealogical Source?

The simple definition of a genealogically valuable historical record or source is a record created at or near the time of an event by someone who participated in it, witnessed it, or had an official duty to record it. Genealogically valuable records are not limited to a particular era or format; an oral history or personal recollection from a relative fits this description just as well as an archival document.

Unfortunately, the word "source" often carries multiple meanings. In genealogical practice, what we often need most is a clear record of where that source resides, that is a citation telling exactly where and how the information was obtained. Over a lifetime of reading footnotes, I have found that few explain this access route in detail. Most merely cite a title or publication without indicating where a researcher might actually locate it. Citations vary widely in style and depth, but even a straightforward bibliographic citation can establish this connection:

Here is a perfectly acceptable citation to a book. 

Bennett, Archibald F. A Guide for Genealogical Research. Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1956.

From a genealogical perspective, the citation is missing the key element of where the book was found. In this case, the book is still subject to copyright protection and is only available in libraries and for purchase online. If the citation included a reference to the location of the book, subsequent researchers would not have to go through and try to find the book themselves. Another example of the need for specificity is a citation such as this one for this record:

“Santa Ana. Confirmation Records 1730–1736.” Accessed October 24, 2026. 

This citation tells us where the record was found. However, that particular set of records has 835 images, and lacking a more exact citation, I would possibly have to go through all 835 records to find this particular image. Here is a more complete citation:

“Santa Ana. Confirmation Records 1730–1736.” Accessed October 24, 2026. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GGZK-8NV?cat=koha%3A686299&view=explore&lang=en&groupId=M986-8MC

Fortunately, many of the online genealogy programs have a way to save a complete citation to a specific record. However, this type of feature is not universal, and occasionally you will get a citation to the entire set of records. Here is the citation to the record from FamilySearch.org.

"Santa Ana, Oaxaca, Mexico records," images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GGZK-8NV?view=explore : Oct 24, 2026), image 14 of 103; Archivo Diocesano de Oaxaca. Image Group Number: 004782273

Both these citations take you to the original document. Another important reason for having more specific citations is that you, in doing your own research, may need to go back and look at the original record. Without a specific citation, you may end up doing the research over again.

There are a number of programs which will automate the process of creating citations. A free app is Zotero.org from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Be sure and remember that the source is the description of the origin of the information. The citation is the format in which it is presented. 

There are possibly hundreds of different citation formats. However, genealogists primarily use the Chicago Manual of Style. If you use an app such as Zotero.org, the app itself will format your citations in the style you select. 

Options for using other family trees rather than using the FamilySearch.org Family Tree as a primary family tree

 

The genealogical landscape is populated by a great number of different genealogical resources and genealogical programs. It is extremely difficult to even begin to estimate the total number of active genealogical tree programs. A good sample of the programs available can be found in FamilySearch.org Solutions Gallery. The solutions gallery is available at the bottom of the startup page. Currently, there are seven apps listed as the top genealogical resources and fourteen apps listed as Family Tree Management Apps that sync information with the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. FamilySearch has also entered the options by its creation of "User Trees." 

Of course, this whole discussion relies on the assumption that you are using the FamilySearch Family Tree for your primary family tree. A decision to use another app (program) besides or in addition to the FamilySearch Family Tree for your primary family tree information depends on four main factors:

1. Your view of the reliability of the FamilySearch Family Tree, considering the number of changes you view as happening within your own part of the family tree

2.  Whether or not you want to move to a fee-based Family Tree instead of using the free FamilySearch Family Tree either to stop using the FamilySearch Family Tree or to use another family tree as a backup copy.

3. Your degree of tolerance for maintaining more than one family tree. 

4. The number of individuals you consider to be part of "your" family tree. 

The first major decision involved in either moving from the FamilySearch Family Tree or using another family tree app for a backup is to use a desktop program (app, I use these terms interchangeably) or an online website. The most popular desktop family tree programs include the following:

• Family Tree Maker (Software MacKiev): Currently holds the largest market share among desktop users. It is heavily utilized for its robust multimedia scrapbook management and its native synchronization capabilities with both Ancestry and FamilySearch. It offers native applications for both macOS and Windows.

• RootsMagic: Highly adopted for its clean evidence-first architecture and direct API synchronization with FamilySearch and Ancestry. It handles local-first workflows efficiently, supports the GEDCOM 7.0 standard for data exchange, and generates comprehensive database properties reports. It runs seamlessly on both macOS and PC.

• Legacy Family Tree: Renowned for its unparalleled suite of detailed reports and comprehensive charting options, including dedicated X-DNA charts. It is highly favored by professional researchers for its organization tools, though it remains a strictly Windows-based application requiring virtualization to run on Apple Silicon hardware.

• MyHeritage Family Tree Builder: A widely used freemium desktop client that provides bidirectional synchronization with the MyHeritage global records database. It is particularly strong in local photo management and handling massive offline databases on both Mac and Windows environments.

• Heredis: A major contender that originated in France and dominates the European market, though it has built a substantial international user base. It stands out for its highly visual interface, robust mapping tools, and seamless multi-device synchronization.

• MacFamilyTree (Synium): The most popular desktop program exclusively built for the macOS ecosystem. It is heavily optimized for Apple Silicon hardware, leveraging native Apple frameworks to render massive interactive 3D charts and process 20TB+ multimedia databases with zero latency.

• Gramps: The definitive open-source, offline-first application. It provides absolute local control over databases with zero vendor lock-in, offering extensive plugin customization and strict, evidence-linked citation handling across macOS, Windows, and Linux.

• Family Historian: Widely adopted by evidence-focused genealogists for its rigorous source citation templates and interactive timelines. It operates natively around GEDCOM structures, ensuring that media and source context travel flawlessly during file exports, though it requires Windows 8, 10, or 11.

• Ancestral Quest: The direct architectural successor to PAF (Personal Ancestral File). It maintains a very loyal user base by focusing on strict, local database reporting, straightforward evidence-linked notes, and deep synchronization tools for the FamilySearch shared tree.

This is not an exhaustive list but it represents a broad spectrum of programs. Desktop programs can generally be started using a GEDCOM upload. However, the FamilySearch Family Tree does not have a GEDCOM downloading option so you must rely on the ability of the individual desktop programs to download portions of the part of the FamilySearch Family Tree that contains your family information. Some of the programs have limited support for descendants. 

If you are trying to avoid a shared family tree such as WikiTree, there a fewer options. Here is a list of the major alternatives: 

• Ancestry.com: The world's largest subscription-based genealogy platform. It provides access to billions of historical records, extensive user-generated family trees, and deep integration with its DNA testing service.

• MyHeritage.com: A major subscription and freemium platform featuring more than 20 billion historical records. It is well known for its strong international record collections and its advanced AI photo tools that allow users to enhance, colorize, repair, and animate historical photos.

• Findmypast: A prominent subscription site that specializes in British and Irish genealogy, offering the most comprehensive collection of records for the British Isles.

• Geni.com: A platform dedicated entirely to creating a single, collaborative world family tree where users interconnect their research.

Some of these programs and online websites go back years and are generally accepted as alternatives to the FamilySearch Family Tree.  If you decide to ignore the FamilySearch Family Tree, you may end up duplicating research that is already available. The huge size and continued growth of the unified FamilySearch Family Tree should be regularly consulted to help prevent redoing research that is already documented. 

I certainly recognize that individual preferences regarding the use of any of the programs and websites listed above are totally up to the individual. I use many of the programs and have become familiar with all of them over the years, but time and resources mandate making selections and choices.