The daily reveal · Past game · UTC

Size It Up Answers for October 12, 2026

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

ClassicFive comparisons · October 12, 2026Reveal answers +
03

Orca vs Blue whale

0.2676×
Reference · length
Blue whale 29.9 m
Target · length
Orca 8 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.2676. The target’s length is approximately 0.2676× the reference’s length.

A large orca is only around one quarter the length of a record-size blue whale.

A representative large adult; individual lengths vary.

Replay this comparison →
04

General Sherman vs Elizabeth Tower

0.8729×
Reference · height
Elizabeth Tower 96 m
Target · height
General Sherman 83.8 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.8729. The target’s height is approximately 0.8729× the reference’s height.

The General Sherman sequoia stands only about twelve metres shorter than Elizabeth Tower.

Replay this comparison →
05

Door vs Elephant

0.6152×
Reference · height
Elephant 3.3 m
Target · height
Door 2.03 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.6152. The target’s height is approximately 0.6152× the reference’s height.

A standard door reaches a little over three fifths of an African elephant’s shoulder height.

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

Replay this comparison →
Play Classic for this date →
Pop CultureFive comparisons · October 12, 2026Reveal answers +
01

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 →
02

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 →
03

Jurassic Park T. rex vs Blue whale

0.408×
Reference · length
Blue whale 29.9 m
Target · length
Jurassic Park T. rex 12.2 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.408. The target’s length is approximately 0.408× the reference’s length.

The Jurassic Park T. rex is portrayed at a little over two fifths of a record-size blue whale’s length.

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

Replay this comparison →
04

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 →
05

Jurassic Park T. rex vs City bus

1.017×
Reference · length
City bus 12 m
Target · length
Jurassic Park T. rex 12.2 m

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.017. The target’s length is approximately 1.017× the reference’s length.

The full-grown Jurassic Park T. rex is portrayed at roughly the length of a standard city bus.

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

Replay this comparison →
Play Pop Culture for this date →
GeographyFive comparisons · October 12, 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

Chile vs Brazil

0.9866×
Reference · east–west span
Brazil 4,328 km
Target · north–south span
Chile 4,270 km

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.9866. The target’s north–south span is approximately 0.9866× the reference’s east–west span.

Chile’s north–south reach is surprisingly close to Brazil’s broad east–west extent.

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

Replay this comparison →
03

Egypt vs Italy

0.9208×
Reference · north–south span
Italy 1,200 km
Target · north–south span
Egypt 1,105 km

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 0.9208. The target’s north–south span is approximately 0.9208× the reference’s north–south span.

Egypt’s north–south span is slightly shorter than Italy’s full geographic reach.

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

Replay this comparison →
04

Brazil vs Australia

1.08×
Reference · east–west span
Australia 4,007 km
Target · east–west span
Brazil 4,328 km

Correct ratio: target ÷ reference = 1.08. The target’s east–west span is approximately 1.08× the reference’s east–west span.

Brazil is only modestly wider east to west than mainland Australia and Tasmania together.

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 +