Actiwatch devices are often used to estimate time in bed (TIB) but recently became commercially unavailable. Thigh-worn activPAL devices could be a viable alternative. We tested convergent validity between activPAL (CREA algorithm) and Actiwatch devices. Data were from free-living samples comprising 47 youth (3–16 valid nights/participant) and 42 adults (6–26 valid nights/participant) who wore both devices concurrently. On average, activPAL predicted earlier bedtimes and later risetimes compared with Actiwatch, resulting in longer overnight intervals (by 1.49 hr/night for youth and 0.67 hr/night for adults; both p < .001). TIB interruptions were predicted less commonly by activPAL (mean <2 interruptions/night for both youth and adults) than Actiwatch (mean of 24–26 interruptions/night in both groups; both p < .001). Overnight intervals for both devices tended to overlap for lengthy periods (mean of 7.38 hr/night for youth and 7.69 hr/night for adults). Within these overlapping periods, the devices gave matching epoch-level TIB predictions an average of 87.9% of the time for youth and 84.3% of the time for adults. Most remaining epochs (11.8% and 15.1%, respectively) were classified as TIB by activPAL, but not Actiwatch. Overall, the devices had fair agreement during the overlapping periods but limited agreement when predicting interruptions, bedtime, or risetime. Future work should assess the criterion validity of activPAL devices to understand implications for health research. The present findings demonstrate that activPAL is not interchangeable with Actiwatch, which is consistent with their differing foundations (thigh inclination for activPAL vs. wrist movement for Actiwatch).