answersLogoWhite

0

All animals can and should be considered to be dangerous. Depending on the situation, either one of these sharks is capable of being more dangerous than the other.

This question DOES call for opinion. They are EQUALLY dangerous. Both are mackeral sharks-lamniforms. They have a metabolic edge on most other sharks & fish in that they're partially warm blooded. I'm not sure about the great white , but a mako needs to eat 5 times more in relation to body mass than a sandbar shark, although I'm not sure where either stands up against other species. It does suggest a mako is more likely to be hungry.

Both great white & mako have large, stabbing & cutting teeth. Mako teeth have a higher aspect ratio, & lack the serrations of the teeth of great whites. Contrary to some claims, mako sharks are not limited to prey they can swallow whole. Their teeth can cut & dismember as well as stab & hold. They are known to have taken swordfish, & there's evidence that they have killed dolphins.

Great whites are more well known for taking mammals-seals & sea lions. There are more documented attacks on humans by great whites. This may be accounted for by the fact that white sharks are more inclined to hang around coastal waters, whereas makoes are more nomadic & prefer the open ocean, sometimes travelling as far as 30 miles per day on average, so they might not encounter humans as often.

In a confrontation b/n the 2, the gw's superior size & more robust & serrated teeth will most likely give him the edge. A mako's speed might keep him out of reach.

Neither are immune to orca(killer whale) predation.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

What else can I help you with?