Few reality shows have made as much of an impact on not only television, but the world, as Survivor. Created by Charlie Parsons, this intense competition has transcended the bounds of CBS to become an international game with more than a dozen versions all over the world. Each iteration is lucky to have their own genuine ‘Survivor Legends,’ iconic castaways who thrive not only on this show but many others — just like Survivor Australia’s ‘Golden God,’ David Genat. Winner of Survivor Australia: All-Stars, he not only astounded viewers with his turn on that series but made genre history by winning more than five million dollars on Deal or No Deal Island. It’s a triumph that has hurled him into the international spotlight, with Genat using this platform to thank his supporters…and throw some shade.

Genat, who won Survivor Australia in 2020, brazenly said in a recent interview that Survivor USA is a program for ‘gamebots’ and dorks, stating that Australia’s version is an inherently better game. It’s left many longtime fans all over the world wondering: is he right? In a new era that has seen so many twists on the classic format, has US’ Survivor begun to lag behind its Australian sibling? It’s a complex question that takes an ample amount of research, data, and of course, puzzles to decipher, so let’s get to it and try to determine which actually is better: US or Australian Survivor.

‘Survivor’ Is an International Phenomenon

It’s hard for any fan of reality television to not at least be slightly aware of Survivor and its impact on reality TV. A redux of Parson’s initial Swedish series, Expedition Robinson, the show evolved over the years into the intense social competition that viewers love today. It follows a group of strangers stranded on a stretch of barren wilderness, forced to contend not only with the harsh elements but each other’s brutal strategy for the grand prize of $1,000,000. For more than two decades, the American version of this franchise has broken barriers in this genre; it has steadily evolved into one of television’s most complex competitions, introducing shocking twists and wild game mechanics to keep avid fans entertained. It’s a newer version of the classic format…that Genat completely defames. But there actually are numerous changes between these versions, logistical differences that not only change the game for each cast but offer viewers completely different versions of the game.

When it comes to logistics, there are three major differences between American and Australian Survivor: days, food, and contestants. For American fans, the number of days that the cast competes is a controversial topic; the series’ ‘New Era’ (seasons 41 onward) has dropped the number from 39 to 26, with many believing that this has made the setup too easy. Fans think that spending more time competing brings out the best in contestants. Imagine when they learn that almost every single season of Survivor Australia lasts for more than 45 days? This length is offset by a critical component, though: food. While US players face constant starvation with the hope of an occasional meal, Australian law makes it, so those players never go more than a few days before being treated to a massive food reward.

Starvation doesn’t make Survivor good (though it certainly doesn’t hurt), it’s the castaways that truly make an installment great. This format change shifts in Australia’s favor once again, as their seasons consist of 24 players while America’s only has 18…but that’s not necessarily a good thing. This abundance of contestants means that many episodes feature no elimination at all, undercutting the intensity of this entire setup because the Aussie players know that they basically have ‘Rest Weeks’ to look forward to. These differences are key to each program, but they’re only a platform for what will really determine which series is better: the game itself.

It’s Time To Determine Who Wins: Brains or Brawn?

While American Survivor focuses on puzzles and strategy, Australia’s gameplay is one that allows for strategy, but prioritizes strength and actual survival. These different approaches show most of the challenges. While America occasionally has endurance challenges, most immunities consist of a physical obstacle course and a puzzle, with the series trying to create an equal opportunity for its cast to win no matter their physical strength. On the other hand, Survivor Australia — which focuses mainly on recruiting physically fit players — has physical tasks for almost every challenge, consistently featuring things like wrestling or endurance contests to determine who is safe for that episode. It’s a kind of gameplay that Genat mentions he used to enjoy about the USA Survivor, noticing (along with many fans) how these have completely disappeared in recent iterations. The second half of this critique focused on recruitment, namely, how America seems intent on only casting huge fans. Now, each cast has the gist of what they’ll be facing, knowledge that doesn’t erase the excitement but certainly robs American players of the surprise Australians face in every episode.

Listing out all of these differences, it’s clear that, while part of the same franchise, Australian and American Survivor are two wildly different games. America is focused on strategy and social; the program aims to be a microcosm of society, with its format trying to show how people would realistically utilize their physical and mental abilities in such intense situations. While Australia does inherently have many opportunities for strategy, it’s undeniable how much the series champions the brawn of its competitors over everything else. This shows not only in their different challenges but in their format, with Australia’s constant food supply and occasional ‘Rest Weeks’ meaning that its players are always primed for intense physicality. Both have clear value, but to really determine which is better, fans need to look at the tagline both shows live: Outwit, Outplay, Outlast. This is a game where people not only have to last under tough conditions but strategize around other players, using every skill at their disposal to make it another day. And, with that in mind, it becomes clear exactly which version of this mythic reality show is better.

And the Better Version of ‘Survivor’ Is…

Before a winner is selected, it must be said: both Australian and American Survivor are some of the best shows on TV right now. Each one demands the most out of its competitors and creates thrilling television as it pushes these groups to their absolute limit. But while both are great, Survivor Australia has to be applauded for its nonstop exhilaration and ability to throw an endless amount of creative challenges at a group of true powerhouses…which is why it’s so painful to announce that American Survivor is absolutely the better version of the show. That’s not to say that Genat wasn’t correct in his critique; the series must stop casting only superfans, and it wouldn’t hurt to bring back some of the intense challenges of its early years.

At its core, Survivor is a game centered around players utilizing everything they can to win, going through some of the toughest situations imaginable and bringing out every skill they didn’t know they had in the process. American Survivor not only allows players who aren’t physically strong to thrive, but it puts the emphasis on strategy, touching on the core tenets of this franchise and showing that a mental battle is as invigorating as any physical challenge. This isn’t a black-and-white question and there’s so much more that can be said about each show, but Genat brought it up so it’s our duty to tell him: sorry, ‘Golden God,’ American Survivor is superior to Survivor Australia.