I've been using this particular smart weight scale for the past year: [vont.com]. I find it more efficient and convenient than the normal scales we have been using. Of course, I test every three months to make sure the scale works perfectly. I think the smart ones are better since they have a lot of useful functions and motivate you to keep your body measurements as good as possible, but at the same time, they have a very affordable price.

Whichever, it is best to calibrate and/or test your scale for yourself every now and then, by using known weights.

As however you seem to be talking about bathroom scales, it is hard to see why great accuracy would be needed, things like the body mass index are only approximate recommendations, and human weight will vary through the day by several pounds, according to many factors such as how hydrated you are, most scales should be more than accurate enough therefore. A better way to ensure greater accuracy if wanted, (Though Why ?) would be to weigh yourself several times during the day and average the results.

Bunch of stupid comments here. I was a certified scale tech for twenty two years.
There is NO comparison. Digital scales are more accurate. Springs wear and get weak. Levers get corroded. Load cells do not malfunction unless they are mistreated. Accuracy and load depends on the load cell type. The load cell is a analog device, then decoded by the Analog to digital converter chip. It doesn't matter what the bit rate is.
The accuracy is based on the load cells design.
There is no comparison.

You get a digital scale and if you don't like what it says you weigh, move it two inches to either side. You'll get a different reading

I like my digital scale more than my analog scale. I am always 15 lbs lighter on my digital scale. It may not be working properly, but since we have a president that lives in an alternate reality, I choose to believe my digital scale, and I accuse my analog scale of being part if the fake scale media.

Analogue and digital are simply two different display systems. The accuracy, precision, repeatability of the instrument depends mostly (not 100%) on the transducer that converts the delta message into a signal. Transducers that measure such physical characteristics such a weight, pressure, velocity, length, temperature are almost invariably analogue devices - pitot tubes, manometers, Bourdon tubes, thermocouples, strain gauges, &c. I cannot think of an exception, at least not in my world of fluid dynamics.

Weight scale? A digital scale always has rounding errors... based on decimal places. Am analog scale can be read to infinite decimal places...but the human eye can't read it that well, and rarely are they calibrated well. So... choose your poison.

It worries me that kids today think that an analog clock is some mythical device that only the ancients can understand and worship now...I remember someone younger telling me that 120 seconds was longer than 2 minutes when they microwaved something....oh please...

The question is too generic. It would depend on the built in accuracy of the individual instrument.

I have been in the recording biz off and on since the late 70's till well, I still do it.
To be honest, both have their merits, as well as pitfalls.
Although, the art of digital has come leaps and bounds since the early 80's, sample rates, frequency rates, and many other Bits, (Pardon the pun). Digital recording has made that art the most easilly accessable format ever. The problem is that with digital, there is only the limit of programming, and with so many over using tools like compression.

I do find it funny when young "audiophiles" for lack of better word will spend 3k on a turntable thinking that that is the "truest" sound. But in reality vinyl has some major issues as well.

To be succinct, I love the digital tools, but Miss the art of real time flaws that really make a recording human. If that makes any sense.

That depends on a lot of things. Assuming they have both been calibrated, and are placed in identical ideal conditions, whats going to determine this is the way that the scales work.

So, an analog scale will move a lever a certain distance based on the weight, which will be offset either by a spring or the mechanical tension in the lever. This means that the scale will be most accurate in the mid range, and less accurate at maximum and minimum weight.

For the digital scale, the inaccuracy is going to be a function of the fact that computers can't count right because that's how binary works. So to quickly explain, each time the last number reaches 1, the number doubles in value, the same way when we get to 10 in arabic numbers the first number indicates the number of ten's.
0 = 0, 1 = 1, 10 = 2, 11 = 3, 100 = 4, 101 = 5, 110 = 6, 111 = 7, 1000 = 8, 1001 = 9, 1010 = 10.

Fractions are stored in the computer as x/10 + y/100 + z/1000 ... so if you do a simple math problem with floating points: 1.2 - 1.0 you get 0.199999999999999996
This problem is unavoidable based on the way that modern machines function, so this inaccuracy will be fundamental to any digital scale.

All that being said, it's going to come down to calibration anyways, and either could be more accurate than the other. I'm not going to recommend you buy calibrated weights to find out, but that's your choice I suppose.

Clothing size. Toss the scale.

It depends on use and quality.

So... You looking to get weighed?

It depends on the quality of the device. Cheap, on both fronts aren't good.