# List of recommended Comparisons

Of course, not all comparisons make sense: Why would you want to compare Strebe 1995 with Wagner VII?
– Their distinctions are clearly obvious.
On the other hand, there *are* projections which are *very* similar so you have to look twice to spot the differences.

So I put together a list of such pairs of projections.

Moreover, I’ve added a few pairings of projections that are not that much alike but, for one reasons or another, quite interesting
to compare nonetheless.

Projection 1 Image | Projection 1 Name | Projection 2 Image | Projection 2 Name | Compare | Why? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

A4 Projection | Ciric I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

A4 Projection | Dedistort | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Dedistort is mixing the A4 projektion with Ciric I. |
|||||

Airy Minimum-error Azimuthal | Breusing Harmonic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Aitoff | Hammer | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Aitoff | Natural Earth II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||

August Epicycloidal | Eisenlohr | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Azimuthal equal-area (Hem.) | Breusing Harmonic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (equatorial aspect) | Gott-Mugnolo Azimuthal (equat.) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (Hemispheres) | Breusing Harmonic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (Hemispheres) | Gott-Mugnolo Azimuthal (Hemispheres) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (Hemispheres) | Nicolosi Globular | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Baker Dinomic | Mercator | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Baker Dinomic is identical to Mercator between 45° North and 45° South. This is quite obvious in the scaled to same width comparisons. |
|||||

Behrmann | Hufnagel 12 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Hufnagel 12 is a variation of Behrmann which reduces distortions. |
|||||

Braun Perspective | Mercator | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?The Braun Perspective Cylindrical projection is a deliberate approximation towards Mercator. |
|||||

Breusing Harmonic | Nicolosi Globular | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

BSAM Cylindrical | Tobler’s variant 1 of Miller Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

BSAM Cylindrical | Gall Stereographic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?BSAM is a modified Gall Stereographic, with standard parallels at 30°. |
|||||

BSAM Cylindrical | Urmayev II Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Canters W13 | Ginzburg VI | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Not really similar, but both are polyconic projections with low distortions, so it’s worth the effort to compare them. |
|||||

Canters W14 | Wagner-Böhm I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Böhm’s modification of Wagner VIII deliberately approximates Canters W14. |
|||||

Canters W14 | Ginzburg V | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Not really similar, but both are polyconic projections with low distortions, so it’s worth the effort to compare them. |
|||||

Canters W34 | Hufnagel 3 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Ciric I | Winkel Tripel | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Ciric I is based on the Winkel-Tripel. |
|||||

Ciric I | Dedistort | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Dedistort is mixing the A4 projektion with Ciric I. |
|||||

CM Equidistant Conic | Lambert Equal-Area Conic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Well… I just thought it’d be kinda nice to compare an equal-area conic projection to an equidistant one of similar configuration… |
|||||

Craster’s parabolic | Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Craster’s parabolic |
Putnins P_{6} |
Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Denoyer Semi-Elliptical | Wagner-Denoyer I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Denoyer Semi-elliptical is one of the parent projections of Wagner-Denoyer. |
|||||

Denoyer Semi-Elliptical | Wagner-Denoyer II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Denoyer Semi-elliptical is one of the parent projections of Wagner-Denoyer. |
|||||

Eckert I | Eckert II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?They are the only projections (here on this website) having the shape of a hexagon. |
|||||

Eckert III | Wagner VI | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Eckert IV | Hufnagel 9 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Eckert IV | Hufnagel 10 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Eckert IV | Wagner IV | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Eckert IV | Natural Earth II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||

Eckert IV | Nell-Hammer modified | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Modified Nell-Hammer is intended to be an easier to calculate alternative to Eckert IV. |
|||||

Eckert IV | Equal Earth | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Eckert V | Wagner III | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Eckert V |
Putnins P′_{5} |
Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Eckert VI | Wagner I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Eckert VI |
Putnins P′_{4} |
Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Eckert VI |
Putnins P′_{6} |
Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Eckert-Greifendorff | Quartic Authalic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Eckert-Greifendorff | Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Entfernungsbezogene Weltkarte (distance-related map; approximation.) | Wagner VII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?The entfernungsbezogene Weltkarte is a modification of Wagner VII. |
|||||

Equal Earth | Robinson | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?The Equal Earth projection was designed to visually resemble the Robinson while maintaining Equivalence. |
|||||

Equal Earth | Wagner IV | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Gall-Bomford | Gall Stereographic | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Gall-Bomford is a modification of Gall Stereographic. |
|||||

Gall-Bomford | Times | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Both are based on Gall Stereographic. |
|||||

Gall Isographic | Equirectangular (35.6°) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?It’s the same projection, but using different standard parallels. |
|||||

Gall Isographic | Equirectangular (0°) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?It’s the same projection, but using different standard parallels. |
|||||

Gall-Peters | Strebe-Hammer 29°S | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Two equal-area projections that have almost the same aspect ratio, but a totally different distribution of distortions. |
|||||

Gall Stereographic | Times | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?The Times is a modification of Gall Stereographic. |
|||||

Ginzburg VIII | Cropped Ginzburg VIII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Cropped is a modification of Ginzburg VIII. |
|||||

Gott-Mugnolo Azimuthal (equat.) | Azimuthal equal-area (equat.) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Gringorten | Peirce Quincuncial | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Not similar to each other, they share the same unusual segmentation of the earth. |
|||||

Hammer | Hammer-Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Hammer Cylindrical is a modification of the Hammer projection. |
|||||

Hobo-Dyer | Smyth equal-surface | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Hobo-Dyer | Trystan Edwards | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Hufnagel 2 | Hufnagel 3 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Hufnagel 2 | Tobler Hyperelliptical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. I recommend to compare usign Flat Ocean Mode |
|||||

Hufnagel 3 | Tobler Hyperelliptical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. I recommend to compare usign Flat Ocean Mode |
|||||

Hufnagel 4 | Tobler Hyperelliptical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. I recommend to compare usign Flat Ocean Mode |
|||||

Hufnagel 9 | Hufnagel 10 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Kavraiskiy I | Mercator | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Between 70° North and South, Kavraisky I is identical to Mercator. |
|||||

Kavraiskiy V | Mollweide | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Differences are quite obvious near the poles. Nonetheless, I thought that these two might be interesting to compare. |
|||||

Kavraiskiy V | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | |||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Kavraiskiy V | Sinucyli [1] | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Kavraiskiy VII | Wagner VI | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?The projections are more or less identical, except for having a different aspect ratio. |
|||||

Kharchenko-Shabanova | Tobler’s variant 2 of Miller Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

McBryde-Thomas #1 | Sinucyli [1] | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

McBryde-Thomas Flat-Polar Parabolic | McBryde-Thomas Flat-Polar Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Miller | Patterson Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?The Patterson projection derives from the Miller projection. |
|||||

Miller | Compact Miller | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Compact Miller is… well, a compact derivation of the Miller projection. ;-) |
|||||

Mollweide | Natural Earth II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||

Natural Earth | Robinson | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Natural Earth | Natural Earth II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||

Natural Earth II | Robinson | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||

Natural Earth II | Winkel Tripel | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?When Natural Earth II was introduced, the creators showed this pairing, too. |
|||||

Nell | Nell-Hammer | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Nell-Hammer is derived from Nell. |
|||||

Patterson Cylindrical | Equirectangular (35.6°) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To clearly show how the Patterson projection »balances polar exaggeration against maintaining the familiar shape of continents«. |
|||||

Putnins P′_{4} |
Wagner I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Putnins P′_{4} |
Putnins P′_{6} |
Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Putnins P′_{5} |
Wagner III | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Putnins P_{6} |
Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Quartic Authalic | Sinusoidal | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. |
|||||

Raisz Armadillo | Raisz Armadillo (Southern Hemisphere) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Just to have view of both northern and southern hemisphere. |
|||||

Robinson | Wagner V | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?While very much alike at first glance, in direct comparision the differences become quite obvious. Moreover, this is the pairing that started it all – see What’s this all about? |
|||||

Smyth equal-surface | Trystan Edwards | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Strebe 1995 | Strebe Asymmetric 2011 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Strebe Asymmetric 2011 is a modification of Strebe 1995. |
|||||

Tobler’s variant 1 of Miller Cylindrical | Urmayev II Cylindrical | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?These two projections nearly identical, so you might spot the differences in direct comparision only. |
|||||

Wagner I | Wagner II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||

Wagner II | Wagner III | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||

Wagner III | Wagner III 40° | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To demonstrate the effect of choosing a standard parallel other than the equator. |
|||||

Wagner IV | Wagner V | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||

Wagner IV | Wagner-Denoyer II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Wagner IV is one of the parent projections of Wagner-Denoyer. |
|||||

Wagner V | Wagner VI | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||

Wagner VII | Wagner VIII | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||

Wagner VII | Wagner-Denoyer I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Wagner VII is one of the parent projections of Wagner-Denoyer. |
|||||

Wagner VIII | Wagner IX | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To illustrate Wagner’s gradual transformation of his projections. |
|||||

Wagner VIII | Wagner-Böhm I | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To clearly show Dr. Böhm’s modifications on Wagner VIII. |
|||||

Wagner IX | Wagner IX.i | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To show the effect of Wagner’s own proposal to compress the projection to 88% of its original width. |
|||||

Wagner IX | Winkel Tripel BOPC | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?There are obvious differences, but for the most part quite similar. |
|||||

Wagner IX | Wagner IX, Canters Optimization (Approximation) | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To compare the low-error optimization to the original. |
|||||

Wagner IX.i | Winkel Tripel | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Wagner himself proposed to compress his IX projection to 88% of its original width to approximate Winkel Tripel’s outer shape. |
|||||

Wagner-Denoyer I | Wagner-Denoyer II | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To demonstrate the differences of the two variants. |
|||||

Wagner-Denoyer I | Wagner vii@70-46-60-0-216 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Wagner vii@70-46-60-0-216 is supposed to approach the Wagner-Denoyer I (but maintaining equivalence). |
|||||

Wagner-Denoyer I | Wagner vii@73-46-60-14-206 | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Wagner vii@73-46-60-14-206 is supposed to approach the Wagner-Denoyer I. |
|||||

Winkel Tripel | Winkel Tripel Bartholomew | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?To clearly show the effects of Bartholomew’s modification. |
|||||

Winkel Tripel | Winkel Tripel BOPC | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?BOPC is a variant of the other one. |
|||||

Winkel Tripel Bartholomew | Winkel Tripel BOPC | Compare Projections | Why this pairing? | ||

Why is it a suggested pairing?Two variants of the same parenting projection. |