Metric VBT validation & accuracy
We compared Metric's vision tracking system against a GymAware tether unit (the $1,995 linear-position transducer) across 95 repetitions in 15 sets, looking at mean and peak velocity on bench press, deadlift, squat and cleans. We tested multiple Metric recording setups, including 45° angles, low-angles, 30fps footage, 720p, 4K, low-light and glare environments. Here's how Metric (iOS v6.9 and Android v1.2) compares.
Rep-by-rep mean velocity agreement
Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) measures not just linear association but also systematic bias and scale differences — it's more rigorous than Pearson r for method-comparison studies. 0.9+ is considered excellent agreement; values above 0.98 approach the limit of what two instruments measuring the same physical quantity can achieve.
Rep-by-rep peak velocity agreement
Peak velocity is harder to measure accurately than mean velocity, susceptible to frame-rate and smoothing artefacts. The CCC of 0.975 across 95 reps (bench, deadlift, squat and cleans, including explosive clean peaks above 2.5 m/s) includes videos recorded at both 60fps and 30fps across Android and iOS devices.
Mean absolute error vs GymAware
MAE is the average magnitude of the per-rep difference. How far off each device is for the same repetition in metres per second. Compared to GymAware, Metric reads slightly faster on mean velocity and slightly lower on peak velocity.
More in-house validation
Additional in-house and user-contributed studies covering different reference devices, lift types, and training contexts — alongside the GymAware comparison above.
- User-contributed — June 2026
Metric vs RepOne: six real training sessions
Peak velocity CCC 0.960 · 69 reps · squat, bench, deadlift · 95–430 lb · real training data, not a lab protocol
Read summary ↗ - Metric in-house — June 2026
Metric vs GymAware: internal validation across conditions
iOS v6.9 / Android v1.2 · 17 sets · bench, deadlift, squat, cleans, jumps · per-condition breakdown across angle, frame rate, lighting and distance
Read summary ↗ - Metric in-house — 2022
Reliability & validity of the Metric VBT beta
Internal validation of an early beta. Baseline before the published peer-reviewed studies.
Read summary ↗
Don't take our word for it. Metric is also externally validated.
Five peer-reviewed papers from separate research groups tested Metric against lab-grade hardware — 3D motion capture systems and linear-position transducers. We offered recording guidance and data export support but had no input in the published results or analysis.
- Grossi et al. — University of Urbino, 2026
Metric vs Vitruve LPT: Smith machine bench press at 1-RM
Peak velocity r = 0.91, ICC = 0.888 · 18 trained men · Smith machine bench press at 1-RM load
Read summary ↗ - Šagovac, A. — University of Zagreb, 2024
Validity & reliability of Metric in the bench press
Metric v4.5 vs Vitruve linear transducer · 150 reps · r = 0.93 mean velocity
Read summary ↗ - Renner, Mitter, Baca — PLOS ONE, 2024
Concurrent validity of three smartphone VBT apps
Metric v2.3.1, Qwik VBT, MyLift vs Vicon mocap + RepOne LPT · 589 reps
Read summary ↗ - Taber et al. — Int. J. of Strength & Conditioning, 2023
Validity and reliability of a computer-vision system
Metric v0.5.4 vs 3D motion capture · 800+ reps · ICC mean velocity 0.79–0.98
Read summary ↗ - Trowell et al. — 2024
Validation of a commercially available mobile application
Metric v0.6.0 vs 3D motion capture
Read summary ↗
Use Metric in your research
Running a study and want to use Metric as a measurement tool? Get in touch. Our engineering team is available for technical questions and can help with data export.