ds@mcpanalytics.aiEmail your data and your question and get an answer about your own data, with the method shown.Email your data and question. Get an answer.

Do Your Two Methods Actually Agree?

Upload a CSV, map the two columns measuring the same thing, and get the Bland-Altman plot with bias and limit lines, the bias with a confidence interval, the 95% limits of agreement with their own intervals, and a proportional-bias check. Free.

We email you the report link.

Free up to 10,000 rows. Encrypted in transit.

📊
-
Rows
-
Columns
-
Numeric

Running method agreement (bland-altman) analysis...

Computing bias and limits of agreement...

✓

Sent to . Inside: Bland-Altman plot with bias and limit lines, agreement statistics with confidence intervals, proportional-bias check, R code, and AI insights.

Sample report

Open the full sample →

View all case studies → See all free tools →
Why an analysis, not a chat answer

Ask twice, get two answers? Watch how we fix that.

The method, in full

The practical guide behind this tool: when it applies, how to read the output, and the traps that make it say the wrong thing.

Read the guide →

How it works

The analysis works on each row's difference between the two methods, plotted against the pair's mean (the Bland-Altman plot). It computes the bias (mean difference) with a t-based 95% confidence interval, the 95% limits of agreement (bias ± 1.96·SD of the differences) each with its own confidence interval via the classical Bland-Altman standard error, a regression of the difference on the mean to detect proportional bias, and the observed share of points inside the limits. The correlation between the methods is reported alongside and explicitly contrasted with agreement.

Use it whenever two methods measure the same quantity on the same units and you need to know whether they can be used interchangeably: a new device against a gold standard, two instruments, two labs, two assays.

Not for two measurements of different quantities or different units (the difference is meaningless), not for asking whether a measurement changed over time (use the paired comparison tool), and not for categorical ratings (use an agreement statistic for categories).

Built for: Lab scientists, clinical researchers, quality engineers, and analysts validating measurement methods

Typical data source: Any spreadsheet or CSV with two numeric columns measuring the same thing on the same samples: device vs reference, instrument A vs instrument B

HealthcareLaboratoryManufacturingResearchPharmaOperations

What data do you need?

Two numeric measurements of the same quantity on the same samples, one pair per row. For example, a portable meter against the lab reference:

sample_id (text) portable_meter (numeric) lab_reference (numeric)
S001 104.2 101.9
S002 88.7 87.2
S003 131.5 128.8

Minimum 10 rows · Best with 40-5,000 paired rows

What's in the report?

Standard-library analysis: do two measurement methods agree well enough to be used interchangeably? Map two numeric columns measuring the same thing on the same units: a new device against a reference, two instruments, two assays, two raters scoring a continuous quantity, and get the Bland-Altman plot with bias and limit lines, the bias (mean difference) with a 95% confidence interval, the 95% limits of agreement each with its own confidence interval, a proportional-bias check, the observed share of points inside the limits, and the correlation coefficient explicitly contrasted with agreement.

🔵

Bland-Altman Plot

Each pair's difference plotted against its mean, with the bias line and both limits of agreement: the whole agreement story in one picture.

📋

Agreement Statistics

The bias, the SD of the differences, and both limits of agreement, each with a 95% confidence interval.

📋

Proportional Bias Check

A regression of the difference on the magnitude: a significant slope warns that agreement varies with the size of the measurement.

📋

Methods & Disclosure

The classical Bland-Altman formulas in full, plus the correlation-vs-agreement teaching point and the tolerance disclaimer.

🤖

AI Insights

Plain-English reading of the results and what to do next.

The Question This Answers

Can the new device replace the reference method?

Map the new device's readings and the reference method's readings on the same samples. You get the bias with a confidence interval, the 95% limits of agreement with their own intervals, and a proportional-bias check: the numbers you compare against your clinical or technical tolerance.

Questions?

See our FAQ for pricing, privacy and how the analysis works.

How to cite this tool

MCP Analytics. Method Agreement (Bland-Altman). Free tool. https://mcpanalytics.ai/free/standard_bland_altman. Accessed [date you used it].

Your data has more stories to tell

Run it on your data

Sign up to save datasets and schedule runs

Powered by MCP Analytics

Your turn

Bring your own data and the question you actually need answered.

MCP AnalyticsData science by email Send us your data and your question, and we will reply. ds@mcpanalytics.ai