Open the tool

Goldfish vs great white shark: how their vision differs

Two animals people expect to see alike, or very differently. Here are their values side by side, from the same catalogue and with the same evidence labels.

Sample scene rendered by the See Like Animals engine for the goldfish.
Goldfish
Sample scene rendered by the See Like Animals engine for the great white shark.
Great white shark

The differences in numbers

Dial by dial

DialGoldfishGreat white shark
Colour
Colour receptors: 4 receptor classes: 360 nm (UVS), 455 nm (SWS (blue)), 532 nm (MWS (green)), 614 nm (LWS (long)) Measured (not re-verified)[1][2][3]
Ultraviolet: yes: at least one receptor peaks in the ultraviolet Measured (not re-verified)
Colour receptors: 1 receptor class: 501 nm (MWS (green)) Measured (not re-verified)[4]
Sharpness
Acuity: 3 cycles per degree Measured[5]
Acuity: 7.864 cycles per degree Estimated[6]
Field of view
Binocular overlap: 32.85° Estimated[7]
Eye placement: lateral Estimated[7]
No value
Sharp zones (foveas)
Number of foveas: 0 Group default[8][9]
Fovea type: ventrotemporal area (high rgc density) Group default[8][9]
No value
Night vision
Activity pattern: diurnal Group default[10]
Rods vs cones: cone-dominated Group default[10]
No value
Motion (flicker fusion)
Flicker fusion frequency: 53.6 Hz Measured[11][12]
Flicker fusion frequency: 29 Hz Group default[13][14][11][15][12]
Compare them on your own photo

Vision types: Goldfish: Shallow-water fish tetrachromat. Great white shark: Shark, ray and warm-eyed ocean predator.

More comparisons: all comparisons.

Sources

  1. Schweikert LE, Fitak RR, Caves EM, Sutton TT, Johnsen S. 2018. Spectral sensitivity in ray-finned fishes: diversity, ecology and shared descent. J Exp Biol 221:jeb189761. Table S1. doi.org/10.1242/jeb.189761
  2. VPOD in-vivo (MSP / single-cell) lambda max compendium, file scp_cleaned.csv, VPOD GitHub (Frazer et al. 2025 bioRxiv 10.1101/2025.08.22.671864). github.com/VisualPhysiologyDB/visual-physiology-opsin-db/tree/main/scripts_n_notebooks/vpod_ML_workflows/mine_n_match/data_sources/lmax/vpod
  3. Hárosi F, MacNichol E (1974) Visual Pigments of Goldfish Cones. The Journal of General Physiology
  4. species_v1:Hart et al. 2025
  5. Caves EM, Sutton TT, Johnsen S (2017) Visual acuity in ray-finned fishes correlates with eye size and habitat. J Exp Biol 220:1586-1596. Table S1.. doi.org/10.1242/jeb.151183
  6. Claes JM et al. 2014. Photon hunting in the twilight zone: visual features of mesopelagic bioluminescent sharks. PLoS ONE 9:e104213, Dataset S1. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104213
  7. Pita D, Moore BA, Tyrrell LP, Fernandez-Juricic E. 2015. Vision in two cyprinid fish: implications for collective behavior. PeerJ 3:e1113.. doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1113
  8. species_v1:Schwab et al. 2001
  9. species_v1:Temple et al. 2010
  10. Froese R. & Pauly D. (eds). FishBase, snapshot v25.04 (morphmet, morphdat, species, families tables), distributed as parquet by C. Boettiger for rfishbase.. fishbase.org
  11. Healy K, McNally L, Ruxton GD, Cooper N, Jackson AL. 2013. Metabolic rate and body size are linked with perception of temporal information. Animal Behaviour 86:685-696. Table 1. doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.06.018
  12. Lafitte A, Sordello R, Legrand M, Nicolas V, Obein G, Reyjol Y. 2022. A flashing light may not be that flashy: A systematic review on critical fusion frequencies. PLoS ONE 17(12): e0279718. S10 File (CFF database). doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279718
  13. Horodysky A, Brill R, Crawford K et al. (2013) Comparative visual ecophysiology of mid-Atlantic temperate reef fishes. Biology Open
  14. Haarlem CS, Hynes C, Jackson AL, Mitchell KJ, O'Connell RG, Healy K. 2026. Pace of ecology drives the tempo of visual perception across the animal kingdom. Nature Ecology & Evolution (doi:10.1038/s41559-026-02994-7). Figshare dataset 10.6084/m9.figshare.30556475. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30556475
  15. Inger R, Bennie J, Davies TW, Gaston KJ. 2014. Potential biological and ecological effects of flickering artificial light. PLoS ONE 9(5): e98631. Table 3. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098631

Renders use the sample scene at a 60° field of view in daylight. Evidence levels: how the tiers work.