The study compared two methods for measuring carbon exchange in forests: eddy-covariance (EC) and biometric methods (BM). While EC and BM give different estimates of net ecosystem production (NEP), they are similar for ecosystem respiration and gross primary production. Differences are more pronounced in boreal forests with lower carbon fluxes. BM tends to underestimate net primary production and overestimate leaf respiration. EC shows consistent results across sites, suggesting reliable post-processing procedures. This research boosts confidence in EC, identifies conditions for integrating EC and BM estimates, and suggests ways to improve their convergence.