What a great post @Firedog, thank you for taking the time to put all of this together!

Some really interesting data especially comparing those to the ‘similar homes’, there’s quite a difference there.

It would be interesting to know how others’ compare to their ‘similar homes’.

Two months on and no-one has come back to confirm or refute my allegations 

I’ve had a bit of to-and-fro with someone at OVO who might have something to do with one or the other of these features, sadly with no real explanation or indication of why this striking discrepancy exists. And it’s still there. Last week, for example, Insights shows this:
  

while on the app I see:
  

Where the heck does this 23.93 kWh / 32.29 kWh difference come from? 

Has no-one else noticed anything of the sort?

In any case, the comparison isn’t serving any useful purpose, unless there’s a substantial difference between OVO homes and others. That’s a different issue entirely ...

rI can’t reproduce the Beyond figure of 17.22 kWh for my own consumption. It’s only 10 Wh different from what I think it should be, and what Insights thinks it is, so the difference is hardly significant. I’ve looked at the BST shift in usage data (which gives 17.207), but meter readings and GMT usage data give 17.232 and 17.231 respectively. This sort of 10 Wh discrepancy occurs in several other weeks this year, so I wonder where Beyond is getting its figures from, quite apart from those for similar homes.]

Hi @Firedog 

Must confess I never noticed the difference between app and web before but now you mention it…

I was always confused by the CO2 comparison graph

I have converted last years energy usage to CO2 equivalent and get

• Gas 1.77 t
• Electricity 0.73  t (30%)
• Total 2.4 t

For similar homes this is

• Gas 2.50 t
• Electricity 1.2 t (32%)
• Total 3.7 t

I assume the comparison must be over all properties.

Ah, but is that average, mean, or median usage?

It's all smoke and mirrors anyway, depends on who is trying to sell you what or persuade you of what ideas.

Statistics can be twisted to support just about any position or argument.

Striking, isn’t it? Thanks for checking!

Me too. Mine has never changed ever since I first looked, whenever it was first introduced I suspect - always 0.1 t (electricity only).

Even that is suspicious. When I looked this morning, I saw that in the emissions data for my region, 7.5% of them was from coal (!) and something over 40% from gas. No wind (but then it was dead flat calm at the time). The coal has gone again now.

I suppose Ratcliffe (just 30 miles away) has to use up all the coal that was shipped in a couple of weeks ago before shutting down in a few weeks’ time.

Yes, but this is supposed to be a helpful comparison. I can’t see what argument OVO might be trying to make by distorting statistics like these. There must be a major difference in the source of data and/or the filters used to arrive at such disparate figures. I’m glad not to be alone in this disjointed world!

LOL, distorted data sources, filters, and subsequent calculations.

I'll just say FACs.

Edit to add- “Computer says …..”

The app and website have shown different figures since the feature was launched.

We pointed out the difference at the start on the forum.

The original reason given was due to the different IT code release versions between the app the website, but the calculations have never been aligned since then.

I can't imagine there is any work going on to do this after all this time. I expect they will never align now.

I didn’t know that! Any chance you could find the reference so I can see what people said back then? I’m not even sure when ‘the feature was launched’ - was it simultaneous in the app and on the web?

Last month I learned from ‘the team’ that “after an in depth look into this we find that one of the models used is a bit outdated which we are looking at replacing or removing. Specifically, one of the similar homes models is out of date. We are possibly looking at updating or removing this model.” No indication of where the out-of-date model was being used - web or app.

Three years ago there was a conversation about differences between the app and the website

I suspect it is one of those features that look good in press releases and advertising but in reality is rarely used by customers to make informed decisions.

Thanks. I only see a discussion about the difference in emissions; they’re not particularly interesting when an all-electric household will always show the minimum possible, because OVO claim that all the electricity they supply is renewable and thus carbon-insignificant.

I’m concerned about the difference in consumption of homes similar to mine. The app says it takes into account region, property type, no. of bedrooms and types of fuel. I can’t find the same information about the website’s Insights, but I’d be surprised if their filters are very different. So how does one lot get to a figure 35% higher than the other?

No idea…

As I said I suspect very few people use the feature.

I don't honestly think it is possible create a model to compare usage. There are simply too many variations. OVO are in a no win situation as posters will simply point out that the model doesn’t match their situation. 

I do like the idea of the Energy Expert visits. At only £25 that sounds like a great offer that thousands could benefit from and give personalised advise that no fancy online tool could ever give.

Do you have any evidence for this suspicion? As a nation, we’re renowned for trying to ‘keep up with the Joneses,’ whether that involves the size of our TV screens, the length of the grass in our front gardens or our holiday destinations. I don’t see why the amount we spend on energy should be excluded from the catalogue of things to be compared with our peers.

If the variations are specified, the comparison could be useful nonetheless. If the figures were to show that I was using much more than allegedly similar households, I’d want to try and find out why - which is where an Energy Expert visit should help. As it is, I have a good idea why I’m in fact using much less.

If the figures we’re shown are suspect, there’s not much to be drawn from them either way. That’s my gripe.

I know quite a few people away from the forum who are ovo customers and none of them use it.

I think it was tim who said the majority of customers rarely log onto their account.

I stand by what I said, it is a waste of time I personally think.

It is only people like you who would ever have seen the difference, and I say that as a compliment @Firedog