Broadly speaking, the kegg fertility tracker is considerably more accurate than the basal temperature method but slightly less accurate than urine-test monitoring. Two studies (both funded by Lady Technologies) quantify the comparisons. The first is a 2022 study that found the kegg tracker to yield a 63.6% sensitivity and an 81.8% specificity, whereas urine-test monitoring yielded a 100% sensitivity and 25% specificity.Cruz-Ramos, J. A., Klepich, J., Ramos-Márquez, M., & García-Gil, G. (2022). Vaginal electrical impedance detects the fertile window in healthy women: A pilot study. Revista Mexicana de Ingeniería Biomédica, 43(3), 6-14. The findings tell us that urine-test monitoring is probably better for getting a true positive but that kegg is better for getting a true negative. In that regard, kegg could be better suited to a broader user population — women who want to get pregnant, those who don't, and those who simply want to track their cycles — while urine tests are better for those who are planning pregnancies. The other study, from 2024, found that, compared to a basal body thermometer, kegg yielded 7.14% more sensitivity and 20.35% more specificity, so it's overall more precise than tracking your temperature.Tabbaa, S., Hambright, S., Sikes, K. J., Levy, G., & Rydfors, J. (2024). The effectiveness of cervical mucus electrical impedance compared to basal body temperature to determine fertility window. Contraception and Reproductive Medicine, 9, 20. Likely, the basal temperature method is best suited to women who want to become pregnant and are therefore prepared to accept a false negative.