Researchers may select from varied technological and practical options when evaluating balance. Methodological choices inform the quantitative outcomes observed and allow practitioners to diagnose balance abnormalities. Past investigations have differed widely on sampling duration, and these discrepancies hinder comparisons among studies and confidence in outcomes where trials were excessively short. This study aimed to identify necessary trial lengths for common and emerging center of pressure-based measures. We hypothesized that dependent variables would fluctuate over time but eventually reach a stable magnitude. Ninety-seven apparently healthy adults performed quiet standing for 180-seconds (s) with eyes (A) open and (B) closed on a force platform. Anterior-posterior and medial–lateral elements of the center of pressure were used to calculate velocity, time-to-boundary, and Hurst exponents using 15, 30, 90, 120, 150, and 180 s of data. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to differentiate postural measures over time and between vision conditions. Outcomes were considered stable when significant changes in the measure were no longer observed in the time factor. Dependent measures stabilized for velocity between 60 and 120 s, time-to-boundary between 120 and 150 s, and the Hurst exponent between 30 and 120 s. Velocity measures stabilized quicker with eyes open, whereas vision had no effect or the eyes closed condition was faster to stabilize in time-to-boundary and detrended fluctuation analysis measures. We conclude that 150 s of standing data is sufficient to capture a broad range of postural stability outcomes regardless of vision condition.