Repeatability of traditional kinematic and kinetic models is affected by the ability to accurately locate anatomical landmarks (ALs) to define joint centres and anatomical coordinate systems. Numerical methods that define joint centres and axes of rotation independent of ALs may also improve the repeatability of kinematic and kinetic data. The purpose of this paper was to compare the repeatability of gait data obtained from two models, one based on ALs (AL model), and the other incorporating a functional method to define hip joint centres and a mean helical axis to define knee joint flexion/extension axes (FUN model). A foot calibration rig was also developed to define the foot segment independent of ALs. The FUN model produced slightly more repeatable hip and knee joint kinematic and kinetic data than the AL model, with the advantage of not having to accurately locate ALs. Repeatability of the models was similar comparing within-tester sessions to between-tester sessions. The FUN model may also produce more repeatable data than the AL model in subject populations where location of ALs is difficult. The foot calibration rig employed in both the AL and FUN model provided an easy alternative to define the foot segment and obtain repeatable data, without accurately locating ALs on the foot.