On the Jewish side, it's almost entirely incorrect. The Samaritans and "Northern Tribal" (assuming that means Israelean religion) branched off before it can really be fairly called "Judaism". The Karaites aren't really descendants of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the only show in town before them, but they reject much of the Pharisee's reasons to exist.

Sephardic Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are not opposed. Sephardic Judaism is a regional variation, but it is not a separate sect, Sephardic religious practice is generally Orthodox. Hasidic Judaism is Orthodox, not just a descendant of it, unlike Conservative and Reform Judaism. Conservative Judaism also evolved in large part from Reform Judaism, too.

There are Orthodox non-Hasidic sects, and many many more Hasidic sects than Breslov, Chabad, and Satmar. And all those three have their own subgroups.

It's not necessarily inaccurate, but the problem lies with the notion of Jewishness which can be looked at as an ethnicity, or a religion.

The main split there in Christianity, Judean and Pauline, refers to a time early in the foundation of Christianity, where Paul made it his mission to convert non-Jews (Gentiles). These converts would not be religiously Jewish (they did not subscribe to the same commandments, like being Kosher or circumcised ), nor would they be ethnically Jewish (Hebrews, ostensibly descendents of Abraham through Isaac).

You could make the argument that the foundation of Islam is pretty closely related to being (Ethnically) Jewish, insofar as, by tradition, the earliest Muslims were descendants of Abraham (Ibrihim) through Ishmael. I'm not sure if that's actually true, or if genetic research could even prove such a thing, but that is the tradition they maintain. Similarly, however, they aren't Jews by any meaningful sense. They are not Hebrews, and their beliefs are not Jewish.

This chart is pretty useful, however, at showing how different beliefs are more or less related to/inspired by others. However, just because Christianity has it's foundations in Jewish thought, doesn't mean that early Christians were Jewish, grew up Jewish, or would even consider themselves Jewish.

Likewise, early Muslims would never think of themselves as being Jewish or Christian, and they would have grown up as neither.

For one, Sufi practices are not limited to Sunni Islam, nor are they a separate "sect" of Islam like this graphic and others seem to think. Rather, it's a different exploration of Islam that focuses on the deeper meaning of things and closeness to Allah, so to speak. There are Shi'a and Sunni sufis. There are also a whole lot more schools of thought than just the two branches they show.

I also have no idea why Islam is shown as coming out of Nestorian Christianity.

With regards to Islam, I don't think it's accurate. Islam is not an offshoot of Nestorianism like the chart implies. Nestorian Christianity holds that Christ has distinct Human and Divine spirits in one body - Islam holds that he had no divine spirit and never claimed special divinity and will deny having claimed it at the last judgement. In fact, believing Jesus was divine in Islam constitutes shirk - polytheism, the biggest sin there is in Islam.

There are also passages in the Qur'an and Hadith where Muhammad specifically advises Muslims to do the opposite of what the Christians and Jews do simply because they do it.

In the Sahih Muslim:

Mu'awiya came to Medina and he addressed us and he took out a bunch of hair and said: What do I see that one of you does but that what the Jews did? (I can well recall) that when this act (adding of artificial hair) reached Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), he named it as cheating.

In the Sahih Bukhari:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Jews and the Christians do not dye (their grey hair), so you shall do the opposite of what they do (i.e. dye your grey hair and beards).

So to draw a direct line of descent from Nestorian Christianity feels more like a stretch for convenience's sake to make Islam fit into the pattern than it does actually theologically accurate. I'd also question the idea that Sufism is a direct offshoot of Sunni Islam instead of its own denomination.

It's almost entirely inaccurate. Why does the internet have such a raging hard-on for the Cathars?

"Judean" and "Pauline" Christianity were never separate strands of Christianity, assuming we're talking about the discussion as to whether to include Gentiles, they were two positions within the exact same group of people. It's like saying Democrats all died out once George W. Bush was elected president. Also there is no such thing as "Primitive" Christianity. There are "restorationist" protestants who think that's what they're doing, but to say they are anything other than a cooky protestant sect is ridiculous.

There were no "Gnostic" Christians, at least not people who would call themselves Gnostic. Even when we use the term, it's most often used as a catch-all for early heretical Christian sects that had some weird fusion of Jewish and Greek philosophies. As you can imagine, there are lots of ways of combining those, and the various groups of "Gnostics" often had even less in common with each other than they did with the orthodox church.

I am of the somewhat unpopular opinion (EDIT: Extremely unpopular, it appears, as I've been shadowbanned for this comment) that Islam is a collection of Christian heresies that were outdated even when Muhammad was alive, loosely cobbled together under a new framework, but to call it some sort of descendant of Nestorianism is silly. It has a lot of Jewish, Zoroastrian, and Arab pagan influences as well. The neat "family tree" model doesn't take into account the eclecticism involved in the beginnings of most of these traditions, but it really shows with Islam. Also, Sufism, much like Kaballah, is a mysticism tradition that is available to any Muslim, Sunni or Shia. Lastly I'm not particularly convinced that dividing it into "sects" like that is really as informative as dividing them according to the legal schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

On to Jews. It astounds me that Sephardim are really on this, as that is an ethnic designation. I noticed they didn't include Felasha or Ashkenazim in here, which is weird. It's like saying of Christian groups: Catholic, Protestant, Black people from North Carolina. Sure, there are historical and cultural lines you could draw to make it look like they're a separate sect form the outside, but who comes up with this crap?

Back to Mormons. Calling Joseph Smith a Methodist is like calling Claude Maurice Marcel Vorilhon a lapsed Catholic.

Where are the Calvinists in this chart? The people who are actually called the "Reformers" are nowhere in the branch that came from the Reformation.