There are many differences between the two systems that make comparisions difficult, but there is a specific instance where a valid comparison can be made.
Readings cannot be compared directly, even if they are in the same units. Readings from both types of sensor contain an unavoidable offset. The offset is removed from traversing probe data by combining readings from two passes with opposite orientation of the sensor. The two-pass survey is not possible with IPIs, so the embedded offset value remains.
Profile plots cannot be compared directly. Pofile plots (cumulative-deviation plots) are made by accumulating the tilt readings from each interval or sensor. The tilt of the probe or sensor is controlled by its contact with the casing. The contact points are 0.5m apart for the traversing probe, but 1m, 2m, or 3m apart for the IPI sensor. Thus the two instruments will share at most just one contact point and always report different tilt angles.
Profile-Change Plots offer the only opportunity for comparison. These “cumulative displacement” plots are made by comparing current profile with the initial profile. The comparision removes the embedded offsets from the IPI values, but the different points of contact withing the casing are still a factor. That said, if the bottom wheels of the probe and bottom wheels of the IPI are positioned at exactly the bottom depth and the top wheels of the probe and top wheels of the IPI are positioned at exactly the same top depth, the value at the top depth should be comparable. In addition, the overall appearance od the plot should be roughly comparable.