KD3ANN’s decisive advantage lies in reach rather than direction: the station uniquely worked more than four times as many receivers as N2LQH missed, with those exclusive contacts heavily skewed westward and at considerably longer median range. This pattern strongly suggests KD3ANN is running a lower takeoff angle—likely from greater antenna height or better ground characteristics—that favors skip propagation over both the long North American west path and the demanding Oceania corridor. In contrast, the receivers N2LQH uniquely captured sit much closer on average and show no strong directional bias, hinting at a steeper radiation angle that occasionally fills in mid-range zones KD3ANN’s flatter pattern skips over but fails to compete on the critical long-haul paths. Both stations operated at identical power and achieved similar directional and continental coverage scores, so the performance gap is almost entirely explained by antenna elevation pattern rather than output or azimuthal nulls. N2LQH’s operator should prioritize raising the radiator or improving the ground system to flatten takeoff angle, then confirm the improvement by monitoring westbound and Oceania reception during evening openings.

N2LQH’s clear advantage stems from reaching a large and balanced set of receivers that NW2W missed, distributed almost equally between North America and Europe and split evenly between eastern and western compass quadrants at moderately long ranges. This pattern suggests N2LQH is operating with a lower takeoff angle or more efficient radiator that populates skip zones NW2W is missing, particularly in the critical transatlantic and cross-continental paths where 30m propagation rewards low-angle radiation. The small group of receivers that only NW2W worked shows a western and nearby bias with scattered long-haul outliers, which is consistent with slightly higher-angle radiation filling in shorter paths but not systematically opening new propagation windows. The similar power levels and overlapping distance percentiles confirm the difference is primarily about radiation pattern and on-air duration rather than transmitter output. NW2W’s operator should prioritize increased days on air to capture more propagation modes, and consider evaluating antenna height or ground system efficiency to lower the effective takeoff angle and recover the missing mid-distance European and North American receivers that currently favor N2LQH.

KD3ANN’s advantage lies primarily in raw operating time and a broader footprint rather than any dramatic antenna superiority. The station uniquely reached nearly two and a half times as many receivers as N2LQH, with the excess concentrated heavily in North America and Europe and skewed westward. This pattern suggests KD3ANN was simply on the air during more propagation windows, capturing both morning and evening openings that favor westbound paths into the Pacific and consistent transatlantic corridors. The receivers N2LQH uniquely worked show no strong clustering toward shorter distances or steeper angles that would indicate an NVIS or high-angle pattern; instead they’re slightly more distant on average and reasonably balanced directionally, implying N2LQH’s antenna is competent but underutilized. The comparable efficiency metrics and near-identical power levels confirm neither station has a significant equipment edge—the primary difference is duty cycle. N2LQH should prioritize increasing on-air hours, especially targeting dawn and dusk periods when 20m openings shift azimuth, to recapture the missing westbound and European receiver population that KD3ANN logged through longer operational coverage.

KD3ANN’s unique receiver set is heavily weighted toward North America and westbound paths at shorter distances, suggesting a lower takeoff angle or radiation pattern favoring skip zones in the two-to-three-thousand-mile range typical of transcontinental propagation. In contrast, N2LQH uniquely reaches a larger proportion of European receivers at greater median distance, indicating better performance on trans-Atlantic paths but at the cost of domestic and westbound mid-range coverage. The clustering of KD3ANN’s unique contacts in the western quadrant, combined with shorter average distance, points to an antenna with either lower height or a pattern that fills in the intermediate skip zone more effectively than N2LQH’s setup. N2LQH’s higher DX ratio and European fraction confirm strength on longer eastbound paths but imply a higher or more focused takeoff angle that overshoots closer stations, particularly to the west. The N2LQH operator should experiment with lowering antenna height or adding a second element to broaden the elevation pattern, which would likely recover the missing domestic and westbound mid-range receivers without sacrificing the existing European performance.

N2LQH’s dominant advantage comes from reaching a large set of nearby and mid-range North American receivers that KC2GYU completely missed, particularly clustered to the west and across the domestic interior. This pattern strongly suggests N2LQH is running higher power into a low-angle antenna with broad azimuthal coverage, efficiently filling the continent at skip distances where 10m F2 propagation favors horizontal radiation. KC2GYU’s uniquely-heard receivers skew distant and specifically favor Europe and other long-haul paths, indicating a compromise antenna—likely lower, less efficient, or with a narrower lobe—that occasionally catches the best DX openings but systematically fails to cover the shorter continental paths that dominate receiver count. The substantial power gap reinforces this: KC2GYU’s modest transmit level means borderline paths that N2LQH holds throughout an opening simply fade below decode threshold. KC2GYU’s operator should prioritize raising antenna height or improving ground radials to lower takeoff angle and increase gain on the prime western and northern domestic routes, then consider a power increase only after confirming the antenna is efficiently radiating at the horizon.