ActiGraph counts are commonly used for characterizing physical activity intensity and energy expenditure and are among the most well-studied accelerometer metrics. Researchers have recently replicated the counts processing method using a mechanical setup, now allowing users to generate counts from raw acceleration data. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare ActiGraph-generated counts to open-source counts and assess the impact on free-living physical activity levels derived from cut points, machine learning, and two-regression models. Methods: Children (n = 488, 13.0 ± 1.1 years of age) wore an ActiGraph wGT3X-BT on their right hip for 7 days during waking hours. ActiGraph counts and counts generated from raw acceleration data were compared at the epoch-level and as overall means. Seven methods were used to classify overall and epoch-level activity intensity. Outcomes were compared using weighted kappa, correlations, mean absolute deviation, and two one-sided equivalence testing. Results: All outcomes were statistically equivalent between ActiGraph and open-source counts; weighted kappa was ≥.971 and epoch-level correlations were ≥.992, indicating very high agreement. Bland–Altman plots indicated differences increased with activity intensity, but overall differences between ActiGraph and open-source counts were minimal (e.g., epoch-level mean absolute difference of 23.9 vector magnitude counts per minute). Regardless of classification model, average differences translated to 1.4–2.6 min/day for moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity. Conclusion: Open-source counts may be used to enhance comparability of future studies, streamline data analysis, and enable researchers to use existing developed models with alternative accelerometer brands. Future studies should verify the performance of open-source counts for other outcomes, like sleep.