Spatiotemporal running metrics such as cadence, stride length (SL), and ground contact time (GCT) are important for assessing performance and injury risk. However, such metrics are traditionally assessed using laboratory-based tools that are often inaccessible in applied settings. Wearable devices including smartwatches and lace-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer promising alternatives, yet cross-device agreement in reporting spatiotemporal variables remains unclear. This study evaluated agreement between a commercial smartwatch and lace-mounted IMUs across varied distances and environments in 65 physically active adults (33 female/32 male, height: 171.0 ± 8.9 cm; weight: 70.9 ± 15.2 kg). Participants completed indoor and outdoor runs (2.5 km, 5 km, 10 km, 20 km) wearing both devices simultaneously. Average cadence demonstrated acceptable agreement (MAPE = 4.1%, CCC = 0.66) and supported equivalence, particularly among males, during outdoor conditions, and longer run distances. In contrast, peak cadence showed weak correlation (MAPE = 5.3%, CCC = 0.29), and SL and GCT demonstrated poor agreement (MAPE = 14.9-19.0%, CCC = 0.30-0.39) across all conditions. While average cadence may serve as a metric for cross-device comparisons, especially for males, and longer-distance outdoor runs, other spatiotemporal metrics demonstrated poor agreement, limiting interchangeability. Understanding device-specific capabilities is essential when interpreting wearable-derived gait data. Further validation using gold-standard tools is needed to support accurate and applied use of wearable technologies.