Gait assessment is of interest to clinicians and researchers because it provides information about patients’ functional mobility. Optoelectronic camera-based systems with gait event detection algorithms are considered the gold standard for gait assessment. Yet, the choice of the algorithm used to process data and extract the desired parameters from those detected gait events has an impact on the validity and reliability of the gait parameters computed. There are multiple techniques documented in the literature for computing gait events, including the analysis of the minimal position of the heel and toe markers, the computation of the relative distance between sacrum and foot markers, and the assessment of the smallest distance between the heel and toe markers. Validation studies conducted on these algorithms report variations in accuracy. Yet, these studies were conducted in different conditions, at varying gait velocities, and on different populations. The purpose of this study is to compare accuracy, precision, and robustness of three algorithms using motion capture data obtained from 25 healthy persons and 21 psoriatic arthritic patients walking at three distinct speeds on an instrumented treadmill. Errors in gait events recognition (heel strike—HS and toe-off—TO) and their impact on gait metrics (stance phase and stride length) are reported and compared to ground reaction force events measured with force plates. Over the 9114 collected steps across all walking speeds, more than 99% of gait events were recognized by all algorithms. On average, HS events were detected within 1.2 ms of the reference for two algorithms, while the third one detected HS late, with an average detection error of 40.7 ms. Yet, significant variations in accuracy were noted with gait speed; the performance decreased for all algorithms at slow speed. TO events were identified early by all algorithms, with an average error ranging from 16.0 to 100.0 ms. These gait events errors lead to 2–15% inaccuracies in stance phase assessment, while the impact on stride length remains below 0.3 cm. Overall, the algorithm based on the relative distance between the sacral and foot markers stood out for its accuracy, precision, and robustness at all walking speeds.