Purpose <p>We investigated the categorical agreement between actual and estimated force–velocity–power (FVP) profiles (i.e., force deficit, velocity deficit, and balanced profile). Complementarily, we compared the FVP output metric (<i>i.e.,</i> F₀, V₀, P_max, and S_FV) to identify potential sources of error.</p> Methods <p>Following familiarization, 37 athletes (mean age 26&#xa0;years; 95% CI: 24–27) completed a loaded squat jump protocol using 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% of their body mass on a force plate. FVP profiles were derived from both force–time data and estimated inputs (<i>i.e.,</i> body mass, jump height, and push-off distance) using Samozino’s method. Cohen’s Kappa (<i>k</i>) was used to assess categorical agreement between actual and estimated diagnoses, categorized as “force deficit” (gentler S_FV or less negative values), “velocity deficit” (steeper S_FV or more negative values), or “balanced” profile (indicating an optimal force–velocity relationship). F₀, V₀, P_max, and S_FV were analyzed via Bland–Altman plots (bias, limits of agreement, and heterogenicity), and paired t tests were used for pairwise comparisons.</p> Results <p>There was a lack of categorical agreement between actual and estimated diagnoses (<i>k</i> = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03–0.30; <i>p</i> = 0.20). Actual F₀ and S_FV values were significantly greater, while V₀ and P_max were significantly lower than their estimated counterparts (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) with large effect sizes (Cohen’s <i>d</i> = 0.89–1.21).</p> Conclusions <p>There is no agreement between actual and estimated FVP diagnoses. The discrepancies in FVP metrics suggest that estimated profiles may misrepresent an athlete’s neuromuscular profile. Coaches and practitioners are advised to interpret estimated FVP profile with caution, particularly when using them to inform training prescription.</p>