I was briefly in possession of both units and did a head to head comparison outdoors. I am also a lefty for those that think the Omni is unreliable for left-handed players.
In summary:
- Both units obtained shot shape and ball data that qualitatively agreed with the shot shapes I saw in real life
- They share unanimous and close agreement on ball speed, ball direction, and most launch characteristics
- For club data on irons, they shared excellent agreement on face and path data
- For club data with driver, they disagreed significantly on face and path data, and I am inclined to think the Mevo+ was more accurate
- Without a Trackman or GCQuad there is no gold standard for comparison, so “accuracy” in the title may be a misnomer and “agreement” more appropriate, but I found everything to be very close to expectations other than driver face/path data on the Omni
I think there are two ways to look at these — the shot-to-shot differences, as well as the differences when averages are compared to smooth out the noise.
Averaged club data:
The most notable finding in all of this was that the Mevo+ and Square Omni share excellent agreement for irons, but disagreed significantly on woods. As a lefty, I play a cut with my driver and accordingly am used to 2-3 degrees RIGHT for club path, with a face angle somewhere between square to the path or slightly left to path (i.e., 0-2 degrees LEFT to target). The Mevo+ was within what I expected with club path 2.2R with a face to path slightly left of that. The Square Omni felt my path was relatively square with a slightly open face. Ultimately this would also make a fade, so it has not made up false physics for these shots, but it arrived at that conclusion in a different way.
| Club | Mevo path | Square path | Mevo face | Square face | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mini driver | 2.2 R | 1.9 L | 2.6 R | 3.0 R | Path disagreement!!! |
| 8 iron | 2.6 L | 4.1 L | 1.9 L | 1.5 L | Good |
| Driver | 2.2 R | 0.0 | 1.6 R | 0.7 L | Everything disagreement!!! |
| 4 iron | 1.9 L | 1.8 L | 0.7 L | 0.9 L | Excellent |
| 7 iron | 3.3 L | 3.1 L | 1.1 L | 1.1 L | Excellent |
Averaged data (7 iron):
| Measurement | N | Mevo+ mean | Square mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ball Speed | 11 | 118.02 mph | 116.82 mph |
| Club Speed | 9 | 87.89 mph | 84.68 mph |
| Launch Direction | 11 | 1.32 L | 1.52 L |
| Launch Angle | 11 | 14.06° | 14.30° |
| Carry | 11 | 164.16 yd | 163.04 yd |
| Spin | 11 | 6,221 rpm | 6,496 rpm |
| Dynamic Loft | 11 | 21.29° | 20.33° |
| Club Path | 11 | 3.29 L | 3.13 L |
| Face Angle | 11 | 1.10 L | 1.06 L |
| Attack Angle | 11 | -7.31° | -3.78° |
Averaged data (Driver):
| Measurement | N | Mevo+ mean | Square mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ball Speed | 13 | 152.90 mph | 151.64 mph |
| Club Speed | 11 | 102.04 mph | 103.41 mph |
| Launch Direction | 13 | 0.35 L | 0.68 L |
| Launch Angle | 13 | 9.62° | 9.68° |
| Carry | 13 | 245.55 yd | 240.07 yd |
| Spin | 13 | 3,016 rpm | 3,362 rpm |
| Dynamic Loft | 13 | 11.02° | 11.37° |
| Club Path | 13 | 2.22 R | 0.02 L |
| Face Angle | 13 | 1.60 R | 0.73 L |
| Attack Angle | 13 | 0.46° | 1.15° |
Shot to shot correlation with 7 iron:
| Measurement | N | Mevo+ vs Square r |
|---|---|---|
| Ball Speed | 11 | 0.987 |
| Club Speed | 9 | 0.474 |
| Launch Direction | 11 | 0.810 |
| Launch Angle | 11 | 0.974 |
| Carry | 11 | 0.872 |
| Spin | 11 | 0.513 |
| Dynamic Loft | 11 | 0.930 |
| Club Path | 11 | 0.456 |
| Face Angle | 11 | −0.015 |
| Attack Angle | 11 | 0.214 |
Shot to shot correlation with driver:
| Measurement | N | Mevo+ vs Square r |
|---|---|---|
| Ball Speed | 13 | 0.968 |
| Club Speed | 11 | 0.785 |
| Launch Direction | 13 | 0.963 |
| Launch Angle | 13 | 0.992 |
| Carry | 13 | 0.862 |
| Spin | 13 | 0.478 |
| Dynamic Loft | 13 | 0.961 |
| Club Path | 13 | 0.048 |
| Face Angle | 13 | 0.729 |
| Attack Angle | 13 | 0.154 |
Angle of attack had particularly poor correlation on these. The Mevo+ had me at 6-9 degrees down and the Square had me at 1 to 6 degrees down. Off to the right I have pictured the raw data, but with shots where one read -8 and the other read -1, this really killed the correlation.
Methods:
Range balls were used, which run a bit spinnier and launch a bit higher on all shots besides wedges. But my goal is comparison so I don’t think it matters much. All balls were in good shape and I excluded a ball if it was well-worn with smoothed dimples which would affect the real-life aerodynamics, which is something the Mevo+ would pick up on as it is watching the actual launch and trajectory of the ball, while the Square Omni’s physics simulator / calibrated data would not.
I did my best to get a setup where the ball was in the ideal reading zone for both launch monitors.
Excel’s CORREL function was used to get within-club r values for each club and its ball data.
This is r, as in Pearson’s r, which measures only how well two variables move together, not whether they have the exact same values. So if the Square consistently under-reads some Mevo+ metric by 5%, but does so consistently, it can still have a perfect 1.000 correlation. So as alluded to in the first paragraph, this was more about correlation than accuracy, and all I can conclude from this is how well the readings tend to ‘move together’.
Below is an example of how this looked for ball speed for the 5 shots hit with an 8 iron. This was repeated for every metric and every set of paired shots within each club. I used assistance from AI to do this en masse once I confirmed it was doing so correctly for several data, because it was very tedious to do it all in Excel.
Leave a Reply