The 2 Star Review on this company says it all Avoid at alls Costs
Affinity DNA issued an official ancestry certificate that contains recognized typographical errors and formatting defects (e.g., the hardcoded merged string "isassociated").
Upon formal technical escalation, their management team issued a written email explicitly conceding to these formatting flaws, admitting that the printed text string is an “oversimplified, generalized summary,” and formally confirming that my underlying laboratory marker data is fully “compatible with a broader West Eurasian / Mediterranean-associated maternal lineage.”
Despite explicitly confirming in writing that the product is geographically oversimplified and contains formatting errors—and admitting their automated software pipeline lacks the technical capability to manually correct the PDF text—the company refuses to issue a refund or a corrected document. Instead, they have weaponized a multi-month source review process as a stalling tactic, only to completely shift their narrative and cease direct communication.
Forcing a consumer to keep a flawed, inaccurate legal document is a direct breach of the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 (digital goods not as described and services not provided with reasonable care and skill). The matter has been formally escalated to Citizens Advice, Trading Standards, and my banking institution for a complete chargeback recovery.
As a defence to their mistake and incompetence they are using false information about claims against other companies cool Story but it never happened. Please use 23 and Me or other reputable providers they are using outdated methods and they have limited panels compare to other companies they should have just owned that fact instead of making up cheap lies.
Here is their response you the truth can be seen clearly
Dear Client,
Thank you for your detailed message and for sharing your observations regarding the maternal lineage report.
After carefully reviewing the report and the mtDNA markers provided, I would like to clarify that the certificate assigns the maternal lineage to the broader Haplogroup U2 category based on the markers detected within the scope of this ancestry panel. The report itself does not provide downstream subclade analysis beyond the general U2 classification.
You are correct that Haplogroup U2 is phylogenetically diverse and includes branches distributed across multiple geographic regions, including Western Asia, the Caucasus, the Levant, South Asia, and parts of Northeast Africa. The descriptive paragraph included on the certificate is intended as a generalized summary of the haplogroup overall and is not designed to provide a precise individualized geographic assignment for every possible downstream lineage.
We also acknowledge your comments regarding the wording and formatting quality of the explanatory text, including the typographical issue you identified. Your feedback is appreciated and entirely understandable.
Regarding the historical interpretation, the certificate text is intended as a simplified overview of broad population history rather than a detailed academic reconstruction of Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age demographic events. As you correctly noted, these represent distinct migratory and cultural processes, and the summary text may therefore appear oversimplified when compared against current phylogenetic literature.
With respect to the specific markers referenced in your message, the ancestry test performed is based on a limited mtDNA marker panel rather than full mitochondrial genome sequencing. Because of this, the available data is not sufficient to conclusively determine a more refined downstream subclade such as U2d or basal U2* with scientific certainty.
However, your interpretation that the reported marker profile is compatible with a broader West Eurasian / Mediterranean-associated maternal lineage is reasonable and not inconsistent with the reported U2 assignment.
At this stage, the report itself remains technically correct in assigning the sample to Haplogroup U2 based on the tested markers, though we understand your concern that the accompanying descriptive text may not fully reflect the broader diversity and regional complexity of this haplogroup.
We sincerely appreciate the time and attention you dedicated to reviewing the report and sharing your feedback.
Kind Regards,
January 14, 2026
Unprompted review