Abstract Study Objectives In field studies using wrist-actimetry, not identifying/handling off-wrist intervals may result in their misclassification as immobility/sleep and biased estimations of rhythmic patterns. By comparing different solutions for detecting off-wrist, our goal was to ascertain how accurately they detect nonwear in different contexts and identify variables that are useful in the process. Methods We developed algorithms using heuristic (HA) and machine learning (ML) approaches. Both were tested using data from a protocol followed by 10 subjects, which was devised to mimic contexts of actimeter wear/nonwear in real-life. Self-reported data on usage according to the protocol were considered the gold standard. Additionally, the performance of our algorithms was compared to that of visual inspection (by 2 experienced investigators) and Choi algorithm. Data previously collected in field studies were used for proof-of-concept analyses. Results All methods showed similarly good performances. Accuracy was marginally higher for one of the raters (visual inspection) than for heuristically developed algorithms (HA, Choi). Short intervals (especially < 2 h) were either not or only poorly identified. Consecutive stretches of zeros in activity were considered important indicators of off-wrist (for both HA and ML). It took hours for raters to complete the task as opposed to the seconds or few minutes taken by the automated methods. Conclusions Automated strategies of off-wrist detection are similarly effective to visual inspection, but have the important advantage of being faster, less costly, and independent of raters’ attention/experience. In our study, detecting short intervals was a limitation across methods.