Recently several methods have been proposed as tools to measure aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV). The carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV), the current clinical gold standard method for the noninvasive assessment of aPWV, uses the carotid–femoral pulse transit time (cf-PTT) to derive cf-PWV. The heart-ankle PWV (ha-PWV), brachial-ankle PWV (ba-PWV) and finger-toe (ft-PWV) are also methods presuming to approximate aPWV based on time delays between physiological signals at two locations (~heart-ankle PTT, ha-PTT; ~brachial-ankle PTT, ba-PTT; ~finger-toe PTT, ft-PTT). To test the validity of these methods, we used a 1D arterial network model (143 segments) including the foot and hand circulation. The arterial tree dimensions and properties were taken from the literature and completed with CT-scans data. We calculated PTT’s with all the methods above. The calculated PTT’s were compared with the aortic PTT (aPTT), considered as the absolute reference method in this study. The correlation between methods and aPTT was good and significant, cf-PTT (R 2 = 0.97; P < 0.001; mean difference 5 ± 2 ms), ha- PTT (R 2 = 0.96; P < 0.001; 150 ± 23 ms), ba-PTT (R 2 = 0.96; P < 0.001; 70 ± 13 ms) and ft-PTT (R 2 = 0.95; P < 0.001; 14 ± 10 ms). Consequently, good correlation was also observed for the PWV values derived with the tested methods, but absolute values differed because of different path lengths used. In conclusion, our computer model based analyses demonstrate that for PWV methods based on peripheral signals, PTT’s closely correlate with the aPTT, supporting the use of these methods in clinical practice.