Ensuring the accuracy and consistency of these measurements is crucial, as it directly impacts the validity of the outcomes related to posture and diverse activities. [PERSON] et al. [29] studied the Pedar(r) mobile system, and despite the mentioned systems' great repeatability, the authors emphasized the importance of correcting minor deviations individually for each insole. Furthermore, and aligned with the previous study's topic, [PERSON] et al. [30] studied 122 parameters of Pedar(r) insoles, obtaining a repeatability coefficient of less than 10% in 114 of the parameters (93.4%). [PERSON] et al. [31] compared the same system with F-Scan insoles (Tekscan(r)) and concluded that Pedar(r) insoles have better precision and repeatability than the F-Scan system. Despite that, [PERSON] et al. [31] reported that the F-Scan system can benefit some clinical applications. [PERSON] et al. [32] analyzed the reliability of measurements acquired by a force platform, stating that reliability varies from parameter to parameter. In the case of peak pressure, the authors obtained a reliability of 0.904 for an average of three attempts. Additionally, the increase in reliability values was emphasized as the number of tests increased, proposing a minimum of three attempts for comparison tests between different individuals. [PERSON] et al. [33] analyzed the reliability of two platforms (Emed-x(r) and Matscan(r)), comparing intra-platform and inter-platform results. For Emed-x(r), a reliability of 0.9 was achieved for 51 of the 56 parameters studied. In the inter-platform tests, reliability was higher than or equal to 0.7 in almost all the analyzed parameters. This study also indicates that the data collected with different platforms is equivalent, sustaining the idea of [PERSON] et al. [32] regarding guaranteeing good reliability values with a minimum of three tests. [PERSON] et al. [34] compared plantar pressure measurement with platforms (with and without shoes) and pressure insoles. The authors observed that in the tests using the insole devices and where the participants wore shoes, the results presented a lower average peak pressure than platform tests. They also concluded that these results could be attributed to the higher contact area created by the insole. Although many of the differences between the results can be attributed to intrinsic differences in conditions, [PERSON] et al. [34] determined that the systems affect the resultsof the measurements, highlighting that care should be taken when obtaining data with these systems and different conditions. Several studies [30, 35, 36, 37] have examined plantar pressure assessment, both qualitatively and quantitatively, using insole systems and pressure platforms. However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no studies have compared these methods in terms of the values obtained from volunteers. To fill this gap, the current investigation aims to compare two different plantar pressure assessment devices experimentally: Pedar(r) insoles by Novel and Physiosensing(r) pressure platform by Sensing Future. This study aims to provide a scientific basis for selecting the device for collecting plantar pressure data. It is hypothesized that the Pedar(r) insole system and the Physiosensing(r) pressure platform will present significantly different values in plantar pressure measurements, specifically in the parameters of maximum peak pressure (MPP) and contact area, due to the technical and structural characteristics of each device.