Comparing Two Distributions

Introduction

So far in Comparing and Communicating Distributions, each lesson has added a new layer to your toolkit. Lesson 1 paired center and spread measures with data shape, Lesson 2 revealed how hidden subgroups and bimodal patterns can undermine single summaries, and Lesson 3 introduced a four-element checklist — shape, center, spread, and notable features — for writing complete descriptions of individual distributions. With three lessons behind you, you are now ready for the skill that comes up most often in real-world analysis. This fourth lesson focuses on comparing two distributions side by side . Data rarely exists in a vacuum. A hospital compares patient wait times between morning and evening shifts. A retailer compares weekly sales at two stores. In each case, the question is not just "what does this distribution look like?" but "how do these two distributions differ, and by how much?" By the end of this lesson, you will be able to organize a structured, element-by-element comparison backed by specific numerical evidence.

From Describing to Comparing

6.0

Structuring a Side-by-Side Comparison

2.0

Element	What to address
Shape	Are both distributions symmetric, or is one skewed? Do they share the same general form?
Center	Which distribution has the higher typical value, and by how much?
Spread	Which distribution is more variable, and by how much?
Notable features	Does either distribution have outliers, gaps, or clusters that the other does not?

Join the 1M+ learners on CodeSignal

Be a part of our community of 1M+ users who develop and demonstrate their skills on CodeSignal

Example: Test Scores Across Two Sections

Statistic	Location A	Location B
Shape	Slightly right-skewed	Roughly symmetric
Mean	$6.8$ min	$4.3$ min
Median	$6.0$ min	$4.0$ min
SD	$2.9$ min	$1.6$ min
IQR	$4.0$ min	$2.5$ min
Min	$2$ min	$1$ min
Max	$14$ min	$8$ min

Now let's compare two distributions that share a similar shape but differ in center and spread. Two sections of the same math course take the same final exam. Section 1 has $22$ students and Section 2 has $30$ students.

Two histograms side by side on a warm cream background sharing the same horizontal axis from 40 to 100. Left histogram labeled Section 1 shows a roughly symmetric bell-shaped distribution of exam scores centered near 78, with muted teal bars ranging from about 60 to 95. Right histogram labeled Section 2 shows a roughly symmetric but wider distribution centered near 71, with muted orange bars ranging from about 45 to 92. Both have crisp navy axis labels and thin consistent outlines.

Statistic	Section 1	Section 2
Number of students	$22$	$30$
Shape	Roughly symmetric	Roughly symmetric
Mean	$78.4$ points	$70.8$ points
Median	$79.0$ points	$71.5$ points
SD	$7.1$ points	$11.6$ points
IQR	$9.0$ points	$16.0$ points
Min	$60$ points	$45$ points
Max	$95$ points	$92$ points

Both distributions are roughly symmetric, so we compare means and SDs:

Shape. Both sections have roughly symmetric, single-peaked distributions. Neither shows strong skew.
Center. Section 1's mean is $78.4$ points, which is $7.6$ points higher than Section 2's mean of $70.8$ points. On average, Section 1 performed noticeably better.
Spread. Section 2 is much more spread out. Its SD of $11.6$ points is more than $1.5$ times Section 1's SD of $7.1$ points, meaning scores in Section 2 varied far more widely around the average.
Notable features. Section 2's minimum ( $45$ points) is $15$ points below Section 1's minimum ( $60$ points), contributing to its wider spread. Neither section shows clear outliers.

The complete comparison:

Both sections have roughly symmetric score distributions, but they differ meaningfully in center and spread. Section 1 averaged $78.4$ points (SD = $7.1$ ), while Section 2 averaged $70.8$ points (SD = $11.6$ ). Section 1 not only scored higher on average but was also more consistent. Section 2's wider range, stretching down to $45$ , suggests some students in that section may need additional support.

This example shows that even when shapes match, important differences can appear in center and spread. Notice how we also highlighted a similarity — both symmetric — before turning to differences. A good comparison acknowledges what the two distributions share, not just where they diverge.

When the Two Measures Disagree

Both examples so far were cooperative: in the first, every measure pointed the same direction, and in the second, the shapes matched so the choice of measure never mattered. Here is a case where it matters a great deal.

A logistics team compares two delivery services, recording $40$ orders from each (times in minutes).

Side-by-side horizontal box plots of delivery times for two services on a warm cream background. Service A, on top, has a muted teal box from 25 to 32 minutes with a navy median line at 28, a navy whisker down to 19, a whisker up to 42, and six navy-outlined outlier dots at roughly 46, 48, 53, 62, 71, and 78 minutes. Service B, below, has a slightly wider muted teal box from 27 to 35 minutes with a navy median line at 31, navy whiskers from 21 to 44, and no outliers. Both share a horizontal axis from 0 to 80 minutes with crisp navy labels.

Statistic	Service A	Service B
Number of orders	$40$	$40$
Shape	Strongly right-skewed	Roughly symmetric
Mean	$34.0$ min	$32.0$ min
Median	$28.0$ min	$31.0$ min
SD	$12.5$ min	$5.2$ min
IQR	$7.0$ min	$8.0$ min
Min	$19$ min	$21$ min
Max	$78$ min	$44$ min

Look closely at the centers. Compare means and Service B looks faster ( $32.0$ vs. $34.0$ minutes). Compare medians and Service A looks faster ( $28.0$ vs. $31.0$ minutes). The ranking flips depending on which measure you pick — so the choice is not a formality.

Since Service A is strongly right-skewed, the rule from earlier applies: use median and IQR for both.

Shape. Service A is strongly right-skewed, with a long tail of very late deliveries. Service B is roughly symmetric. This difference in shape is the reason the two measures disagree at all.
Center. Service A's median is $28.0$ minutes versus Service B's $31.0$ minutes — a typical Service A order arrives about $3.0$ minutes sooner.
Spread. The middle halves are comparable (IQR $7.0$ vs. $8.0$ minutes), but the full ranges are not: Service A spans $19$ – $78$ minutes while Service B spans $21$ – $44$ minutes.
Notable features. Service A has three extreme late deliveries at $62$ , $71$ , and $78$ minutes. Service B's slowest order was $44$ minutes.

Those three orders — $7.5\%$ of the sample — are what pull Service A's mean $6$ minutes above its median and inflate its SD to more than twice Service B's. The mean is not "wrong"; it correctly reflects the total time across all orders. But it is a poor answer to "how long does an order usually take," and reporting it as though it were would reverse the conclusion.

A typical Service A order arrives faster: median $28.0$ minutes (IQR = $7.0$ min) versus Service B's $31.0$ minutes (IQR = $8.0$ min). However, Service A's distribution is strongly right-skewed, with three deliveries of $62$ minutes or more, while Service B is roughly symmetric and never exceeded $44$ minutes. Service A's mean ( $34.0$ min) exceeds Service B's ( $32.0$ min) precisely because of those few extreme orders. Service A is usually quicker but occasionally much slower; Service B is slower on a typical order but far more predictable.

Notice what that paragraph does not do: it does not name a winner. Determining how the distributions differ is a statistical task, but deciding which is better depends on the decision at hand. If an occasional hour-long delay is merely annoying, Service A's faster typical delivery wins. If a single late shipment shuts down a production line, Service B's ceiling of $44$ minutes may be worth $3$ extra minutes on every order. State the comparison precisely and let the stakes settle the recommendation.

Introduction

From Describing to Comparing

Structuring a Side-by-Side Comparison

Join the 1M+ learners on CodeSignal

Keeping Measures Consistent

Example: Wait Times at Two Locations

Example: Test Scores Across Two Sections

When the Two Measures Disagree

Avoiding Common Pitfalls

Conclusion and Next Steps