The setup
I've spent the last several months running comprehensive testing at Triple F Elite Sports Training, including both force plate assessments and switch mat testing with Plyomat. That has given me the opportunity to compare both systems in-depth, especially when it comes to countermovement jump (CMJ) testing and its value for tracking lower body power.
What follows isn't a tear-down of force plates. It's a working coach's honest take on which tool fits which job, and where each one stops paying for itself.
Why the CMJ matters
Lower body power is one of the most foundational traits for athleticism. Whether you're tracking improvements over time, screening athletes for asymmetries, or comparing performance across populations, lower body power remains a critical key performance indicator.
The Countermovement Jump (CMJ) is the gold standard field test for assessing lower body power output because it captures integration of neuromuscular function, coordination, and explosive force generation in a single movement.
The question isn't whether you should be CMJ testing. The question is what you should be CMJ testing with.
Both force plates and switch mats can give you jump height, they just get there via different math:
Both equations are physics. Both are valid. The question is what else each system gives you, and what each one costs.
Force plate tradeoffs
There's no denying that force plates offer a deep, granular look at an athlete's jump strategy and neuromuscular qualities. Metrics like:
- Modified Reactive Strength Index (mRSI)
- Braking Rate of Force Development (RFD)
- Eccentric:Concentric ratios
...are genuinely useful in the right context. But in a practical, field-based setting, especially for high schools, small colleges, or private facilities, force plates still fall short in a few areas:
- They are expensive: often $5,000+ per system, plus a yearly software subscription of $2,000+
- They require ongoing training and interpretation to establish meaning and context for the metrics
- They have higher setup needs, bulkier footprint, and slower throughput during team testing
"For most coaches and practitioners, the challenge isn't collecting more data. It's knowing what to do with the data you already have.
The Springfield study
The most common pushback I hear from coaches considering a switch mat is: "Is the data actually valid?" Fair question. So let's go to the literature.
Validity and Reliability of the Plyomat Device for Vertical Jump Height Measurement
In a 2022 study at Springfield College, researchers compared CMJs from the Plyomat switch mat against an Accupower force plate across 48 Division III football players.
(95% CI: 0.91–0.97)
highest jumps
mean difference
The short version: a very strong positive correlation was found between the Plyomat and force plate jump heights. Plyomat measurements were slightly higher (mean difference of 1.01 cm), but the effect size was negligible. The Plyomat also showed a high degree of test-retest reliability for the highest jumps, which speaks directly to its repeatability for tracking changes over time.
The data is the data. Switch mats and force plates agree on what they agree on: jump height.
Side-by-side comparison
Here's the honest, feature-by-feature breakdown of what each tool actually does well.
| Feature | Force Plate | Plyomat |
|---|---|---|
| Jump Height Accuracy | ✓ High (via GRF & CoM) | ✓ High (via flight time) |
| mRSI, Braking RFD, ECC | ✓ Available | × Not directly available |
| Speed of group testing | × Slower | ✓ Very fast |
| Portability | × Heavy & fixed | ✓ Lightweight, packable |
| Cost | × $5,000–$15,000 | ✓ Under $1,000 total |
| Reporting depth | ✓ Deep (via software) | ✓ Basic, clean app reporting |
| Custom protocol creation | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes (Assessments tab) |
| Best use case | Research, elite profiling | Team testing, power tracking, field work |
Why force plates can be overkill
This might be a controversial statement in 2025, but here goes: having used force plates 15 years ago in graduate school all the way through to today with my youth and NFL combine athletes, I believe their optimal setting is still inside the lab, or another highly controlled environment. Not generally in the field.
Three reasons:
1. Susceptibility to environmental noise
Force plates are highly sensitive devices, and that's both a strength and a weakness. In the field, they're often exposed to uneven flooring, athlete movement outside the capture area, inconsistent footwear, or poor force plate stabilization, all of which corrupt the signal you're paying premium dollars to capture.
2. Cumbersome to derive meaning
Force plates collect hundreds, if not thousands, of data points in a single jump. But having more data isn't always better. For most coaches and practitioners, the challenge lies not in collecting the data, but in knowing what to do with it.
3. We already measure strength in the weight room
Many of the force plate's most attractive metrics, RFD, peak force, concentric impulse, are essentially proxies for strength. But we already have established methods of measuring strength where it actually matters: in the weight room. A 1-RM back squat, a trap-bar deadlift, an isometric mid-thigh pull. Those numbers translate to coaching decisions immediately.
"Force plates are excellent tools, but they aren't for everyone. For the coach monitoring lower body power, screening readiness, or running team-wide testing, a switch mat offers a practical, affordable, and effective solution.
Final word: fit the tool to the job
Remember, I'm a coach. As we've seen through our own data at Triple F, the story is still the same: athletes who jump higher, faster, and cleaner (regardless of platform) are usually the best athletes on the field.
Let's not get lost in the tech and forget the purpose.
If you're running a research lab or profiling NFL-bound athletes, get the force plate. If you're a strength coach, PT, or facility owner who wants to test 30 athletes in 20 minutes, track power across a season, and not write a $5k check for the privilege, a Plyomat does what you need it to do, and the research shows it.