Pulse transit time (PTT) is a proven, simple to measure, marker of blood pressure (BP) that could potentially permit continuous, noninvasive, and cuff-less BP monitoring (after an initial calibration). However, pulse arrival time (PAT), which is equal to the sum of PTT and the pre-ejection period, is gaining popularity for BP tracking, because it is even simpler to measure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that PAT is an adequate surrogate for PTT as a marker of BP. PAT and PTT were estimated through the aorta using high-fidelity invasive arterial waveforms obtained from six dogs during wide BP changes induced by multiple interventions. These time delays and their reciprocals were evaluated in terms of their ability to predict diastolic, mean, and systolic BP (DBP, MBP, and SBP) per animal. The root mean squared error (RMSE) between the BP parameter predicted via the time delay and the measured BP parameter was specifically used as the evaluation metric. Taking the reciprocals of the time delays tended to reduce the RMSE values. The DBP, MBP, and SBP RMSE values for 1/PAT were 9.8 ± 5.2, 10.4 ± 5.6, and 11.9 ± 6.1 mmHg, whereas the corresponding values for 1/PTT were 5.3 ± 1.2, 4.8 ± 1.0, and 7.5 ± 2.2 mmHg (P < 0.05). Thus tracking BP via PAT was not only markedly worse than via PTT but also unable to meet the FDA BP error limits. In contrast to previous studies, our results quantitatively indicate that PAT is not an adequate surrogate for PTT in terms of detecting challenging BP changes.