The daily reveal · Past game · UTC

Size It Up Answers for September 9, 2026

Answers for the independent Size It Up Daily game on sizeitup.top. These are not Magnitudle’s daily answers.

ClassicFive comparisons · September 9, 2026Reveal answers +
02

Football pitch vs Titanic

0.3902×
Reference · length
Titanic 269.1 m
Target · length
Football pitch 105 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.3902. The target’s length is approximately 0.3902× the reference’s length.

Titanic was longer than two and a half football pitches placed end to end.

A representative 105 m pitch within the allowed range.

Replay this comparison →
03

Colosseum vs Statue of Liberty

0.5161×
Reference · height
Statue of Liberty 93 m
Target · height
Colosseum 48 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.5161. The target’s height is approximately 0.5161× the reference’s height.

The Colosseum’s outer wall is roughly half the total height of the Statue of Liberty and pedestal.

A rounded reference value used by this game. Specimens, models and measurement conventions can vary.

Replay this comparison →
04

Elizabeth Tower vs Great Pyramid

0.6931×
Reference · height
Great Pyramid 138.5 m
Target · height
Elizabeth Tower 96 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.6931. The target’s height is approximately 0.6931× the reference’s height.

Elizabeth Tower is about 70 percent of the Great Pyramid’s present height.

Replay this comparison →
Play Classic for this date →
Pop CultureFive comparisons · September 9, 2026Reveal answers +
01

Smaug vs Football pitch

1.048×
Reference · length
Football pitch 105 m
Target · length
Smaug 110 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.048. The target’s length is approximately 1.048× the reference’s length.

A commonly cited screen-scale estimate makes Smaug roughly as long as a standard football pitch.

A representative screen or reference scale. Sizes can change between continuities.

Replay this comparison →
02

Bumblebee vs Elephant

1.485×
Reference · height
Elephant 3.3 m
Target · height
Bumblebee 4.9 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.485. The target’s height is approximately 1.485× the reference’s height.

This screen-scale Bumblebee stands around one and a half times an African elephant’s shoulder height.

A representative screen or reference scale. Sizes can change between continuities.

Replay this comparison →
03

Death Star vs Moon

0.0461×
Reference · diameter
Moon 3,474.8 km
Target · diameter
Death Star 160 km

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.0461. The target’s diameter is approximately 0.0461× the reference’s diameter.

A 160-kilometre Death Star is enormous beside a city, yet tiny compared with the Moon’s diameter.

A representative screen or reference scale. Sizes can change between continuities.

Replay this comparison →
04

RX-78-2 Gundam vs City bus

1.5×
Reference · length
City bus 12 m
Target · height
RX-78-2 Gundam 18 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.5. The target’s height is approximately 1.5× the reference’s length.

An 18-metre mobile suit would stand about one and a half city-bus lengths high.

A representative screen or reference scale. Sizes can change between continuities.

Replay this comparison →
05

Bumblebee vs Door

2.414×
Reference · height
Door 2.03 m
Target · height
Bumblebee 4.9 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 2.414. The target’s height is approximately 2.414× the reference’s height.

At about 4.9 metres, Bumblebee would stand more than twice as tall as a common interior door.

A representative screen or reference scale. Sizes can change between continuities.

Replay this comparison →
Play Pop Culture for this date →
GeographyFive comparisons · September 9, 2026Reveal answers +
01

Italy vs Egypt

1.086×
Reference · north–south span
Egypt 1,105 km
Target · north–south span
Italy 1,200 km

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.086. The target’s north–south span is approximately 1.086× the reference’s north–south span.

Italy’s full north–south reach is only a little longer than Egypt’s.

Approximate linear extent along the named axis; this does not compare land area.

Replay this comparison →
02

Japan vs New Zealand

1.875×
Reference · north–south span
New Zealand 1,600 km
Target · north–south span
Japan 3,000 km

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.875. The target’s north–south span is approximately 1.875× the reference’s north–south span.

Japan’s island chain spans nearly twice New Zealand’s overall north–south reach.

Approximate linear extent along the named axis; this does not compare land area.

Replay this comparison →
03

Madagascar vs Italy

1.333×
Reference · north–south span
Italy 1,200 km
Target · north–south span
Madagascar 1,600 km

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.333. The target’s north–south span is approximately 1.333× the reference’s north–south span.

Madagascar runs about one third farther north to south than the Italian peninsula and islands.

Approximate linear extent along the named axis; this does not compare land area.

Replay this comparison →
04

India vs Japan

1.071×
Reference · north–south span
Japan 3,000 km
Target · north–south span
India 3,214 km

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.071. The target’s north–south span is approximately 1.071× the reference’s north–south span.

India and Japan have comparable north–south extents despite their very different outlines.

Approximate linear extent along the named axis; this does not compare land area.

Replay this comparison →
05

United Kingdom vs France

1.016×
Reference · east–west span
France 950 km
Target · north–south span
United Kingdom 965 km

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.016. The target’s north–south span is approximately 1.016× the reference’s east–west span.

The United Kingdom’s north–south reach is close to metropolitan France’s east–west width.

Approximate linear extent along the named axis; this does not compare land area.

Replay this comparison →
Play Geography for this date →
Daily EstimateOne numerical questionReveal answer +