Background Seismocardiography (SCG) measures timing and force of cardiac contraction. However, limited data is available to confirm its ability to accurately record these events in comparison to echocardiography (Echo). This study compared SCG with Echo to determine whether SCG provided a valid measure of cardiac performance. We hypothesized that the SCG measurements would not be different from Echo. Methods and Results SCG and Echo was performed on 28 (17 females) healthy volunteers (Mean ± SD; age=39.3±13.9 yrs; age range = 12-59 yrs). The SCG was recorded in the supine position. Following SCG collection, Doppler and M-mode Echo measurements were collected. Data analysis was performed on 10 cardiac cycles (SCG’s) and 1-3 Echo images. The results showed the % differences between the Echo and SCG for all comparable variables ranged from 0.90% to 11%, with similar coefficient of variation. Independent T-tests (p<0.05) showed no significant differences between the Echo and SCG, respectively, for aortic valve open to acceleration time of systole (71±13 vs 76±12 msec), mitral valve open to E-wave (111±33 vs 110±20 msec), E-wave to A-wave (370±118 vs 410±144 msec), mitral valve open to E-wave (159±20 vs 164±28 msec), and mitral valve open to mitral valve close (536±129 vs 573±148 msec). Statistically significant differences were found for aortic valve open to aortic valve close (292±18 vs 264±20 msec), and isovolumic relaxation time (81±15 vs 91±8 msec). Conclusion SCG reliably measured cardiac timing when compared to the reference method, suggesting that SCG could be used in applied and clinical research.