# Results! - The G5-G6 Challenge - An actual comparison **URL:** \ **Category:** C/GM\ **Created:** [February 4, 2020, 5:01pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258 "2020-02-04T17:01:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BillKast](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/billkast/32/8111_2.png) [@BillKast](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/BillKast)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2020, 8:43pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/21 "2020-02-19T20:43:44Z")
Sensor 1 died early towards the end of Day 9; Dexcom tech support listened to my troubles and agreed to send a free replacement sensor. So my second sensor ever on G6 was inserted yesterday evening and woke up to give readings just as I went to bed. All looked good, sugars were fine. But, as happens occasionally (Okay, more like once every three days or so…) my sugars crashed just about midnight. Dex woke me up with “Falling” and also “Low Sugars” and I was in the 60’s. I did not worry much; day one after all; I happened to be wearing a 14-day Libre and my Libre Link app showed 139 and flat. But better safe than sorry. So I toddled down stairs, fingerstick etc and had a snack just-in-case. Contour Next said 136, in almost perfect agreement with LibreLink. But Dex continued stock show drops and now Libre was agreeing, with the fall rate. As it turned out my sugars went as low as 82 per the Contour Next fingers tick; dropped to 63 very briefly on the Libre; and things started to rise and I went to bed. One of the interesting take-away data sets is the comparison of Dexcom reading real-time vs the comparison of the ‘smooth’ data that carries forward (the data that shows up on the Clarity reports). Below is both the raw data listing, and a plot of the DEXCOM G6 data as it is published, and also as it is presented later, smoothed and pretty… ![G6 Sensor 2 Low PNG](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/fudiabetes/original/2X/1/1b71b90c9ab9c743cb63ef59c6686be9ce44e4fe.png) ---
**Author:** ![RCA221](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ab992/32.png) [@RCA221](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/RCA221)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2020, 8:09pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/22 "2020-02-25T20:09:37Z")
Hi Eric, when will you post your G5/G6 comparison? ---
**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2020, 11:45pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/23 "2020-02-25T23:45:40Z")
> [@RCA221](#): > > when will you post your G5/G6 comparison? I will soon! I gotta process all the numbers! Will take a bit of time to get them all put together. 😵 ---
**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2020, 6:14pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/24 "2020-03-02T18:14:42Z")
I have all the data from my comparison. I can do it by BG range too, or by particular days of the sensor. But here are the overall comparisons to start with. See my notes above to know what data I was using. _There was no cherry-picking. If I did multiple tests - like a 15 minutes apart or 30 minutes apart - I did not want to over-emphasize a BG value by counting it multiple times. I would always declare before the test and before looking at either CGM whether or not I would include it in my data. So I was trying to be very fair with it._ * * * * * * On the first G6 sensor I wore, I did not calibrate it. It seemed pretty bad. So for the second G6 sensor, I tried calibrating it. And it seemed a little better. Overall, the G5 beat the G6 in pretty much every category. I can pick certain days and BG ranges where the G6 was better (it was better in higher ranges, worse in lower ranges), but if I am looking at all days and all BG ranges, the G5 won. If you want certain ranges or days, let me know. * * * * * * ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/fudiabetes/original/2X/f/f3374e0468a8de323e3beb2cdd737b6230a840fc.png) ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/fudiabetes/original/2X/6/68723536dd18e765d65c7e240e0dafff2eafab95.png) ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/fudiabetes/original/2X/3/3b4bc07df110b56430892654750c3a47685cbc61.png) * * * * * * The G6 seemed to be “over” my actual BG a lot, and the G5 was under a lot. Here are the higher/lower comparisons. ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/fudiabetes/original/2X/f/fe986ef595bd0e61b3da98329b5b5b7415d5c997.png) ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/fudiabetes/original/2X/e/e9a8d532222bf0ce646f3064997ca7f36bdf6cb8.png) ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/fudiabetes/original/2X/7/7efc7db19f5f454992f521c74c218d0b05012b50.png) * * * * * * The G6 seemed to pick up rising or falling trends faster. But it just never settled on the right number as much as the G5. I did see up or down arrows sooner on the G6. At this point I can’t see a reason to switch to the G6. I know eventually I will have to, but I won’t do it on my own at this point. Anyway, lemme know if there are ranges or days for which you want to see comparisons. ---
**Author:** ![RCA221](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ab992/32.png) [@RCA221](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/RCA221)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2020, 7:02pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/25 "2020-03-02T19:02:09Z")
Eric, thanks for the data comparison. Your analysis was not what many people have stated, that the G6 is more accurate. So I have a couple of questions. **Average % difference.** I assume you compared both to your Contour Next. Did you look at the % difference for each finger stick and them sum and average the differences? or Did you sum the differences from the CN and then average the sum based on the number of readings? **% of readings better than the other sensor.** Is this a simple average of the number of times one sensor was better than the other? or Was this a weighted average, somehow. If the sensor was better by 2 points or .3% did that count as one just as one sensor was better by 16 points an 15% would count as one or did you try to adjust by the magnitude of the difference? Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2020, 7:54pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/26 "2020-03-02T19:54:07Z")
> [@RCA221](#): > > So I have a couple of questions. > > **Average % difference.** I assume you compared both to your Contour Next. > > Did you look at the % difference for each finger stick and them sum and average the differences? > > or > > Did you sum the differences from the CN and then average the sum based on the number of readings? > > **% of readings better than the other sensor.** > > Is this a simple average of the number of times one sensor was better than the other? > > or > > Was this a weighted average, somehow. That is a good question, I should have clarified it better. As an example, you can imagine a 50 point difference between meter and CGM when you are at 300 is not nearly as significant as a 50 point difference would be if you were 100! So I did not want to use just the difference in BG points between meter and CGM. Instead I used a percentage. So % difference is (absolute value of | Meter value - CGM value |) / Meter value If your meter BG is 300 and your CGM says 350, that would be |300-350| / 300 = 50/300 = 16.7% If your meter BG is 100 and your CGM says 150, that would be |100-150| / 100 = 50/100 = 50.0% Same difference in BG points, but a much bigger percent difference in that example. Then I averaged all the percentages. So in the two examples above, the total percent difference would be (16.7% + 50.0%) / 2 = 33.3% Does that answer your question? ## Here is a very small and simple set of data to show this: | Meter | G5 | G6 | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | 106 | 93 | 122 | | 80 | 74 | 111 | | 81 | 84 | 125 | | 119 | 105 | 159 | | Average % difference | | | --- | --- | | G5 | G6 | | 8.8% | 35.4% | ---
**Author:** ![RCA221](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ab992/32.png) [@RCA221](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/RCA221)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2020, 10:25pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/27 "2020-03-02T22:25:21Z")
Hi Eric, I couldn’t get to your numbers. Assume G5 had 2 differences from Contour Next of of 5% and -5%. If you combined them you would say G5 was perfect, the average of the differences 0%. But some would look at that and say the G5 averages a 5% difference but one was 5% over and one was 5% under. Did you look at the differences with Contour Next as the denominator. Just trying to understand what you did. ---
**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2020, 10:37pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/28 "2020-03-02T22:37:04Z")
> [@RCA221](#): > > Assume G5 had 2 differences from Contour Next of of 5% and -5%. If you combined them you would say G5 was perfect, the average of the differences 0%. But some would look at that and say the G5 averages a 5% difference but one was 5% over and one was 5% under. I used absolute value. So a 5% and a -5% would average out to 5%, not 0%. > [@RCA221](#): > > Did you look at the differences with Contour Next as the denominator. The denominator was the BG meter value. * * * If my BG meter said **90** , and the CGM said 115, I would take the absolute value of the difference and divide by the BG meter value. So the difference between **90** and 115 is 25. That percentage would be 25 / **90** = 27.8% * * * For comparison, if my BG meter said **205** and the CGM said 180, the absolute value of the difference is also 25. An when I divide by the BG meter value I get 25 / **205** = 12.2% * * * So you can see a 25 point difference is bigger when your BG is 90 compared to when it is 205. ---
**Author:** ![RCA221](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ab992/32.png) [@RCA221](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/RCA221)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2020, 11:10pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/29 "2020-03-02T23:10:05Z")
Great, that’s the way I would have done it so let me give you a few comments. If you recall, I did an analysis of G5 and Xdrip versus meter and used absolute values and compared differences to the meter. So we are in sync. In my analysis, G5 readings were lower than Xdrip readings 80%-85% of the time. You probably have the comparison of G5 to G6. What % of the time were they lower/higher compared to each other? You may have already done that as you compared them both to the meter. My conclusion was I’d rather have a CGM that had readings lower than the blood stick than higher. That would be more conservative in terms of not hitting a hypo. I would not want CGM to be higher than blood stick and find out I was actually very low. I actually did the analysis of G5 to Xdrip three times. The first time Xdrip was substantially more accurate. The second time the G5 was more accurate and the third time they were about the same. My view thus is that a single comparison even if was for three weeks is not conclusive. I also noticed that on average your readings were 13%-18% different than the meter. My tests were on average 6%-10% different than the meter. My point is not a criticism, It’s simply that everyone will be different and everyone should try it themselves rather than looking at an analysis you did on yourself. I’m sure you’d agree that if you were doing a comprehensive study you would do it on 100s or 1000s of people. I think your analysis is great and as you said you could even share more data and conclusions based on others preferences. I will do exactly the same as you when I move to the G6. It gives us some confidence on which is more accurate for us but I think we shouldn’t necessarily extrapolate that to others especially with the many comments we have seen that the G6 is more accurate for many other users. Thanks for sharing. Was it fun? Or at least enjoyable? ---
**Author:** ![MM2](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/mm2/32/3032_2.png) [@MM2](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/MM2)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 12:44am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/30 "2020-03-03T00:44:26Z")
Did you download to Clarity? I would be more interested in general stats comparison instead of specific meter comparison. I have compared G4 and G6 downloads of every 5 minute reading, and found them quite similar when checking trends, or 15 min period averages. But I realize your goal was to compare to meter for accuracy, and I’m more interested in trend accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 12:50am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/31 "2020-03-03T00:50:24Z")
> [@RCA221](#): > > You probably have the comparison of G5 to G6. What % of the time were they lower/higher compared to each other? You may have already done that as you compared them both to the meter. I have a percentage above showing how often it was lower/higher than the meter. You want to see how often they were lower/higher than each other? I can pull that out if you want to see it. > [@RCA221](#): > > My view thus is that a single comparison even if was for three weeks is not conclusive. > … > My point is not a criticism, It’s simply that everyone will be different and everyone should try it themselves rather than looking at an analysis you did on yourself. I’m sure you’d agree that if you were doing a comprehensive study you would do it on 100s or 1000s of people. Yes, I agree that my test was very small. And a longer test with more sensors and 1000’s of participants would be great. But…I was really most interested in how it works for me. If it works better for 999 people, and I am the 1 it does not work better for, that is what is most important to me. And everyone doing this for themselves would be great - except for the fact that it is hard to get G6 and keep your prescription for G5. Or go back to a G5 script after trying the G6. So doing this type of comparison is not easy for a lot of people. ## Shout out to @LarissaW for making this happen! Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 12:52am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/32 "2020-03-03T00:52:52Z")
> [@MM2](#): > > Did you download to Clarity? I did not upload it. But I looked at the graphs a lot, and they had the same general shape to them. The trends were pretty much the same. I never saw one going up and the other going down - except when it might first turn. Like one of them would turn before the other. But they were usually within minutes. ---
**Author:** ![jbowler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e274bd/32.png) [@jbowler](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/jbowler)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 1:08am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/33 "2020-03-03T01:08:59Z")
Are you prepared to make the raw data available? (I.e. sensor times and the three measurements.) ---
**Author:** ![RCA221](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ab992/32.png) [@RCA221](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/RCA221)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 1:44am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/34 "2020-03-03T01:44:54Z")
If agree with everything. Hope you get lots of value out of this analysis. If you would, it should only take a miniute to compare what % of the time one was lower than the other. Would love to compare it to my 80%. ---
**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 2:49am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/35 "2020-03-03T02:49:09Z")
> [@RCA221](#): > > I you would, it should only take a miniute to compare what % of the time one was lower than the other. I’ll pull that out for you. ---
**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 2:53am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/36 "2020-03-03T02:53:38Z")
> [@jbowler](#): > > (I.e. sensor times and the three measurements.) I did not write down the time. It was pretty much irrelevant to me, like 2pm versus 5pm or whatever. Did not matter to me in my analysis. But I can tell you it was done over 19 days and was all the times I did a BG check at home, with the exception of multiple tests minutes apart which I did not count. So it was a pretty random assortment of times. I do not follow any pattern like “Oh, it’s time for my noon test…” ---
**Author:** ![EdD](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/edd/32/6286_2.png) [@EdD](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/EdD)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 3:01am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/37 "2020-03-03T03:01:55Z")
Thanks for sharing everything about the comparison @Eric, Very interesting. I am very surprised. My opinion was that the G6 was more accurate but that wasn’t based on measurements at all. It was also only based on testing under 70 and occasionally over 220 but only really if I was going to aggressively correct. Your results seem like justification to add a nice honest looking 8.82% onto Time in Range values since starting G6 😄 ---
**Author:** ![jbowler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e274bd/32.png) [@jbowler](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/jbowler)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 3:56am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/38 "2020-03-03T03:56:07Z")
Ok, I can work without time; just one-two-three; [next]one-G5-G6. Are you prepared to publish that? ---
**Author:** ![MM2](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/mm2/32/3032_2.png) [@MM2](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/MM2)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 4:29am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/39 "2020-03-03T04:29:34Z")
> [@Eric](#): > > The trends were pretty much the same. I never saw one going up and the other going down - except when it might first turn. Like one of them would turn before the other. But they were usually within minutes. That’s similar to my analysis of G4 vs G6 running at same time. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Eric](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/eric/32/9209_2.png) [@Eric](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Eric)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 4:42am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258/40 "2020-03-03T04:42:11Z")
**Meter, G5, G6** 106, 93, 122 80, 74, 111 81, 84, 125 119, 105, 159 151, 116, 146 84, 88, 133 79, 68, 121 55, 58, 76 127, 112, 152 72, 82, 86 115, 106, 131 95, 102, 112 60, 61, 75 103, 82, 90 94, 82, 100 58, 47, 43 189, 154, 169 141, 137, 149 151, 164, 150 69, 86, 72 100, 93, 105 197, 199, 196 81, 67, 74 138, 118, 148 56, 58, 69 106, 107, 114 149, 122, 147 145, 132, 161 239, 231, 281 68, 80, 86 130, 128, 152 98, 96, 96 51, 68, 54 87, 97, 129 84, 88, 94 75, 79, 95 124, 122, 137 117, 129, 138 154, 147, 182 101, 151, 137 130, 102, 116 133, 139, 150 95, 85, 103 79, 80, 74 42, 58, 66 66, 62, 71 94, 83, 99 240, 206, 208 60, 54, 67 71, 68, 59 116, 112, 106 142, 109, 149 61, 51, 74 111, 98, 131 89, 80, 107 74, 64, 108 106, 100, 143 125, 88, 131 94, 87, 105 139, 156, 137 104, 144, 124 115, 127, 114 61, 92, 79 110, 126, 115 116, 104, 140 101, 80, 130 103, 104, 148 49, 40, 72 50, 60, 75 117, 138, 157 122, 138, 168 81, 84, 97 55, 64, 76 87, 80, 101 76, 82, 99 62, 49, 67 108, 105, 126 54, 43, 65 98, 95, 115 80, 90, 107 155, 126, 157 89, 76, 93 52, 53, 66 100, 92, 123 159, 157, 185 93, 74, 92 68, 76, 90 114, 119, 133 84, 85, 103 79, 78, 82 118, 139, 141 59, 68, 80 85, 81, 91 78, 62, 74 129, 90, 97 142, 126, 128 84, 85, 90 56, 62, 52 98, 76, 101 100, 99, 115 73, 74, 85 105, 98, 116 156, 148, 153 170, 119, 164 79, 84, 95 109, 111, 119 64, 40, 72 70, 72, 78 94, 100, 108 134, 120, 127 142, 126, 143 49, 63, 44 59, 63, 60 51, 40, 56 90, 49, 87 85, 111, 92 102, 119, 111 65, 42, 56 96, 68, 88 104, 103, 96 118, 138, 111 64, 67, 71 39, 40, 54 129, 123, 145 63, 41, 73 73, 71, 93 [Previous page](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/results-the-g5-g6-challenge-an-actual-comparison/9258.md?page=3)