Patient quality assurance (QA) is a required part of the treatment care path, and plan failure can lead to increased personnel hours or delay of treatment. The recommendation by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine is that gamma analysis be used to evaluate measured volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. Vendors have developed many different measurement geometries for patient QA devices which could yield varying pass rates when used with the recommended tolerances, normalization, and criterion. For this study, clinically treated stereotactic body radiation therapy plans were used to evaluate differences in gamma dose tolerances and sampled dose distribution complexity for centralized or peripheral measurement geometries on a cylindrical phantom. Random errors were then introduced into a subset of these plans, and the differences in pass rates between the geometries were correlated with differences in the observed mathematical differences. Finally, a single clinically relevant target coverage deviation was introduced to another subset of plans to evaluate whether a particular geometry is measurably better at identifying clinically relevant errors. It was found that centralized geometries resulted in more lenient dose tolerances and less complex sampled dose distributions compared to peripheral geometries. Pass rates were uniformly lower in the peripheral measurement geometry, and the difference in pass rates between the geometries correlated strongly with the difference in dose tolerance and weakly with the difference in the chosen complexity metrics. However, neither of the geometries were sufficiently sensitive enough to detect clinically relevant changes to target coverage when using recommended tolerances and criteria, and no statistically significant difference was found between their pass rates. Given these findings, the authors concluded that stereotactic body radiation therapy plans could fail patient QA when measured in the peripheral geometry but pass in the centralized geometry, with possibly neither having correlation to true clinical deviation.