Oceanic whitetip vs Bluntnose sixgill: Size, Weight & Bite Force

QUICK VERDICT

Bluntnose sixgill is about 1.20× longer by these reference values.

Bluntnose sixgill uses a 4.8 m upper reference, compared with 4 m for Oceanic whitetip. Bluntnose sixgill's weight reference is about 3.5× heavier.

ON THE SAME SCALE

Human. Bus. Whale.
Pick your reference.

RELATIVE LENGTH · 0–24 METERS

AOceanic whitetipreported to 4 m / 13 ft

BBluntnose sixgillreported to 4.8 m / 15.8 ft

REFAdult human1.8 m · about 80 kg

Length bars use upper comparison values and do not show body depth, tail proportion or typical adult size. A long thresher tail, for example, does not equal whale-shark body mass.

THE NUMBERS

Side by side.

MeasureOceanic whitetipBluntnose sixgill

Length referencereported to 4 m / 13 ftreported to 4.8 m / 15.8 ft

Weight referencerecorded to 167.4 kg / 369 lbpublished to 590 kg / 1,300 lb

Bite forceNo dependable maximum foundUnknownNo dependable maximum foundUnknown

HabitatWarm open oceanDeep temperate and tropical waters

DietFishes, squid, turtles and carrionFishes, rays, seals and carrion

WHAT THE DATA CAN SAY

Size is not the whole animal.

Length and weight

Oceanic whitetip is represented by reported to 4 m / 13 ft; Bluntnose sixgill by reported to 4.8 m / 15.8 ft. The comparison deliberately distinguishes the record from common size. Deepwater sampling is difficult, so upper records are sparse.

Bite evidence

Oceanic whitetip: A traceable, species-wide maximum is not available. Bluntnose sixgill: No standardized maximum is available.

Living versus extinct

Both species are living, but record-sized individuals are rare. These upper references should not be read as normal adult size.

Ecology changes the matchup

Most individuals are under 3 m even though larger records exist. Its six gill slits mark an ancient branch of shark diversity.

TRACE THE CLAIMS

Sources and limits.

Oceanic whitetipFlorida Museum ↗Bluntnose sixgillFlorida Museum ↗How we standardize comparisonsRead the methodology →